But here’s the really interesting part: Coyne points to a medallion struck by Darwin’s wife’s family, the Wedgwood (who were abolitionists). But the medallion fits creationism far better than Darwinism.
The main reason there isn’t a consensus is surely that anything like a consensus would create the risk of falsification. The vaguer a theory is, the less falsifiable it is.A theory like Darwinism is grand and leads to all kinds of dramatic arts and culture stuff but remains too vague to be proven wrong or proven much of anything.
Essentially, Noah Carl is forcing the biology establishment to admit that they can’t impugn Darwin for his racism because he’s their religion. All those other guys can just be trashed. But not Darwin. Not for anything.
This stuff reads like a comedy routine but it is genuine Darwinism.
It’s possible that what Phillips means by “positive Darwinian selection” is random selection that looks a lot like design. The sin is in actually using words that imply that that IS what it looks like. Just when it looks like they’ve hammered everything into submission, another bulge appears.
Hey, Snopes! “Fact check ”this: Evolution: It all began when a guy sailed to an island and saw a bunch of birds with different sizes of beaks which of course can only mean God is dead.
The author, a science writer, keeps orbiting the topic of moving beyond Darwin. Her survey of the scene suggests that researchers are moving beyond Darwin in a variety of different directions. Not clear how they will all meet up…
From ENST: … how did humans by means of natural selection alone develop language and sophisticated verbal communication? The answer: we didn’t. It was a product inherent in us, what Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s partner and challenger, said it was all along, an intrinsic part of human exceptionalism.
Some of us remember fifteen years ago when anyone who brought up Darwin’s racism was informed, superciliously, by Darwinists that only a creationist would raise such an issue, as if there were nothing to be appalled by. One is tempted to say, suck it up. But that’s not a solution.
The author seems to have trouble comprehending the millions of victims of totalitarian rule in China as any kind of a problem. But Darwinism does that to people.
Wallace, as Darwin’s co-theorist, disappeared because he was not useful to the cause of naturalism. We’ll try to help make sure he doesn’t disappear again.
Paper: “Horizontal gene transfer and mating between diverged lineages blur species boundaries and challenge the reconstruction of evolutionary histories of species and their genomes.”
A friend writes to ask, “If we don’t have common descent, and we don’t have natural selection, why do we still call it evolution?”
Much has changed. Certainly, Darwinism certainly isn’t the hot stuff it was. Heck, even Darwinian racism is coming to be seen as a problem. So it’s clearly no longer protected by pixie dust.
David Coppedge: Nothing is ever settled in Darwinian history. That’s part of the genius of Darwin’s strategy for secular science: it provided job security for storytellers. Since human imagination is boundless, Darwin put it to work overcoming the challenges of empirical proof.
Shedinger: But how could a similar series of mutations of the sort necessary to produce similarly structured eyes in different lineages occur so many times independently if the mutations are randomly produced?