Evo psych weighs in on the migration crisis

Bob O'H at 7, it's no joke. Canadians do fund the government broadcaster, the CBC. We must pay, though we are not forced to watch it. When serious issues sound really fatuous, one learns to check for government funding. The CBC could amass an international level of fatuity; one can't go by locations alone. News

Aw, stuffit. Do Brit taxpayers FUND their stuff?

Thank you for that nice bit of xenophobic irony. The simple answer is we don't, as should be clear from the locations of the scientists quoted in the story. Bob O'H

There is no migration problem. Ther is , probably, a immigration problem. Yet the only problem there is demanding the people of a nation decide if any or who or how many foreigners are allowed into THEIR home. This was settled long ago. Just trespassing keeps happening. Let the people hear the case, all details and options, and then VOTE. Simple. Robert Byers

What frosts my sox is that the situation calls for both wisdom and compassion. But if I even brought that up to these Darwindorks, they'd soon be fronting froth about the "evolutionary origin" of wisdom and compassion. Aw, stuffit. Do Brit taxpayers FUND their stuff? News

OT: Nothing to see here. Just a bunch of mongoose cleaning a warthog https://www.facebook.com/buffalomonkey/videos/435908156534560/?pnref=story or http://video2.bajarfacebook.com/bajar-video-de-facebook-435908156534560.html bornagain77

@1 Bornagain,

Eric Anderson: Furthermore, we can look at the alleged evolutionary results and quickly ascertain that natural selection, even if it were some kind of actual force, has no particular direction. Larger organisms? Sure. Smaller organisms? Why not. Faster? You bet. Slower? Well, OK. Eyes? Definitely. Except when creatures don’t get them. More offspring? Absolutely! Except for those creatures with frighteningly few offspring and long gestation periods. Land dwelling or water dwelling, plain-colored or wildly-colored, this or that, up or down, roll the dice on and on . . . Evolution — even granting the intellectually-illegitimate personification of natural selection as some kind of “non-random” selection “power” — provides absolutely zero direction or indication of what will occur in the future or what could have occurred in the past. The whole thing is an absolute crapshoot.

Origenes

Instead, Jacques Cousteau´s granddaughter has recently declared that the cause of the present refugees and migration crisis in Europe is... CLIMATE CHANGE!! That reminds me of Albert Einstein´s famous quote: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” Anaxagoras

So if people migrate or if they don't migrate, it can all be explained by Darwinian evolution? Actually, such an ability of a theory to 'predict' completely opposite results is a sure sign you are dealing with a pseudoscience. Here is a neat little video from BBC radio on the subject: Karl Popper's Falsification - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4 also of note: The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Op-Ed: Time to Ditch Natural Selection? - Oct. 3, 2015 Excerpt: If NS were a law of nature, we would see every organism trending along the same trajectory: for instance, bearing more offspring. But NS explains opposite outcomes with equal ease (see Oct 1 entry for examples). It explains why the sloth is slow and the cheetah is fast. It explains why the roundworm is round and the flatworm is flat. It explains why some animals bear lots of young and why some bear few. We are led to believe that NS explains up, down, in, out and sideways by some mysterious, aimless force, and whatever results was caused by NS. For some time now, I have been calling NS the “Stuff Happens Law” because NS is simply a restatement of the phrase, “stuff happens.” The Stuff Happens Law is the polar opposite of scientific explanation. NS, therefore, is a charade, amounting to giving up and saying, “We don’t know; que sera, sera.” Natural Selection Is a Post-Hoc Rationalization, Not a Cause,,, http://crev.info/2015/10/op-ed-time-to-ditch-natural-selection/ bornagain77