Luskin: Punctuated equilibrium compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived during shorter segments of time, allowing too few opportunities for novel, beneficial traits to arise.
Yes, that sounds like clickbait but it is apparently a discussion at Twitter.
Shedinger: Unlike with the Origin, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. Reviewers were extremely impressed with Darwin’s detailed documentation of the variety of contrivances in orchids. But much to Darwin’s dismay, they did not see this as evidence of natural selection.
For reasons familiar to anyone who follows human psychology, our group was supposed to be the smartest. We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we. That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…
Take the term “Darwinism,” for instance. Dave claims “Darwinism” is “outdated” and “dishonest”: But isn’t Darwinism the Darwinist’s proudest boast? Didn’t even Lynn Margulis have to go along with it?
What Coyne doesn’t get re the New Zealand injustices to scientists is that atheism does that to people. There is no avenue of appeal and nothing to appeal about. Belief in God creates reason.
Intro: Charles Darwin was convinced that the evolution of complexity must proceed by tiny steps. Only tiny steps could be accumulated by natural selection. The process had to go slowly for it to work. Billions of years were needed. But Darwin was aware that this theory had a problem: flowers.
Some day, the Darwinians will discover freedom of religion. In the meantime, let them find out what no freedom feels like. It will sharpen their instincts.
But again, wait. Racism wasn’t an incidental, culturally conditioned element in Rushton’s work. It appears to have been the point of it. If the great E. O. Wilson couldn’t see that, the likely explanation is that elements in Darwinism blinded him to what was pretty obvious to most of Rushton’s fellow Canadians. And why IS that?
Gilson: Christianity Today is supposed to be the voice of evangelical Christianity. Here, though, it has totally capitulated to a naturalized view of human origins. It’s giving in to a view that many evangelicals reject for good scientific reasons. Note: Gilson ends by recommending skeptic Neil Thomas’s Taking Leave of Darwin (2021) instead.
Surely the best approach is to see these convenient cascades of functional machinery as the miracle stories of Darwinism. They are not subject to criticism as to their probability, which is why no Darwinian need take such criticism seriously.
Reader’s comment on the study: The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitude of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudiced against conservative religious groups you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.
Species merging. Julie Berwald: What I didn’t know then was that, even as I ambivalently placed the overhead film on the projector, the concept of the tree of life had begun to wilt. Four decades on, it’s morphed entirely.
Klinghoffer: Even if universal common ancestry is true, there seemingly is no drawable “true tree.” As Lukas says, “Those who study homology simply assume evolution to be true, but they’ve never actually demonstrated that the ancestral evolutionary relationships between different organisms are real.”
Talk intro: Charles Darwin was convinced that the evolution of complexity must proceed by tiny steps. Only tiny steps could be accumulated by natural selection. The process had to go slowly for it to work. Billions of years were needed. But Darwin was aware that this theory had a problem: flowers.