At Nature Heredity: Discoveries during the subsequent two decades have continued to support the idea that loss of function contributes to adaptation (Murray 2020), with cases of adaptive or beneficial loss of function being discovered across diverse organisms, genes, traits, and environments.”
Laszlo Bencze, writes to say, “I am very saddened to hear of Tom Bethell’s death. Not only was he pivotal in my turning away from Darwinism due to his 1976 Harper’s article which I clipped from the magazine and still have but we also became friends during one of his visits to California.”
West: “Unlike most political jurisdictions in the United States, Seattle expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of “political ideology.” Seattle defines political ideology expansively” Big Tech, take heed.
It’s apparently not an adaption to reducing infection risk.
If you are Woke, this is Not Fun.
Wethinks that the big winners are teachers who can’t teach, protected by unions. The big losers are kids who leave school innumerate and must cope with a workplace that no longer needs innumerate people. We have machines now.
Science historian Michael Flannery points out that Douglass’s comments preceded Darwin’s On the Origin of Species because the basic idea of the “modified monkey” (Thomas Huxley’s phrase) was in Lamarck (and probably in the air).
Thomas Kuhn? Where are you? Could you comment on this “paradigm” stuff? It’s really your show.
Curious comment there: “Finally, the paper suggests another counter-factual hypothesis: deleting not Darwin and his Origin but the Darwin Industry itself. This may allow us to read the Origin of Species with fresh eyes and to discover Darwin’s life-long interest in variation and its laws, as many of his early readers did.” But we could do that today, psychologically, and it wouldn’t be alternative history. It would just be what we did.
This stuff seems like an alternative to discussing the way Darwinism is slowly fading out as a way of seeing the history of life anyhow. But we knew they weren’t going to do that.
Curiously, Snopes admits, regarding the piece from The Conversation, “This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.” So… they can get away with publishing this kind of thing because they did not check it out? That is further evidence that Snopes is going downhill fast as a rumor squelching site.
Marvin Olasky offers the comparison but there is also a lively history of other Darwin-Lincoln riffs.
Why was the racists’ idea about brain size considered at all? Materialism does that to people and King was right to see it and call it out.
Join science historian Michael Flannery tomorrow for a birthday party and a look at Wallace’s legacy.
Having run out of even interesting ideas, let alone good ones, Darwinists want to stop other people from publishing any. We’ll be hearing plenty from their ilk in years ahead.