My, my. A commenter formed the correct impression and suggests, “Could you please answer the very valid questions raised by Sabine [Hossenfelder] instead of smearing her like this?”
Every so often, for whatever reason, a US conservative thinkmag steps on Darwin’s rake.
Holloway: Intelligence, like randomness, is mathematically undefinable.
He recognizes that present AI displays the creativity of its creators and not that of a machine-based intelligence but why let that get in the way of a promising theory?.
Just because it’s not clear that the hypothetical particle she studies exists. Okay. But perhaps some physicists will still choose to research particles for whose existence there is actually evidence.
Gelernter is HOW likely to read Coyne’s diatribe and conclude he must be all wrong? But then Darwinians tend not to notice what others do. Presumably, it’s an adaptation.
Well, if genetics isn’t that important, what is heredity? Maybe epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer also shape the lives we live and live among. So then Darwinism is right but unimportant. It explains some things, not most things.
Well, they will just have to keep looking for that early, really simple bedbug, below which there is nothing but sub-bedbugs.
Their assertion shows, of course, what as mess the biological species concept is. If anyone does think all those breeds of dogs are really species, well…
If Neanderthals “diverged” from “modern humans” 800,000 years ago but many of us have Neanderthal genes (yeah, 23andMe stuff, for sure), what chance is there that much of the contention is based on the fact that we don’t really know enough to be sure of very many things?
Life forms trapped in amber—hardened resin from conifers—can show remarkable examples of stasis: No real change from one ten-million-year span to the next one.
The “evolutionary” view (Darwinism, in fact) is often portrayed as a sort of liberation but people may be rather surprised to discover exactly what that liberation is.
Just to set the record straight, embryologist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) had, according to learned expert, a “philosophy of sponges.” And the title above captures part of it.
Do we know that quantum mechanics is wrong and, if so, how can it be useful?
If the most complex cells descended from the least complex ones (which is what it looks like), that’s not really something many researchers want to hear.