Science journalist trashing the Darwin industry? … I have a twin somewhere?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 15, 2008

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Is Susan Mazur writing a book that exposes the Darwin industry instead of protecting it?

Her e-book title is “Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry”
Sunday, 6 July 2008, 12:32 pm | Article: Suzan Mazur

—–

2 Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

3 Jerry Fodor and Stan Salthe Open the Evo Box

4 Theory of Form to Center Stage

5 The Two Stus

[ and further … ]

Susan, you mean, no more of the “dancing with the biologists” on Galapagos rubbish (and, person who wrote that silliness, you know who you are … ) A real accounting at last?

By the way, Susan, the intro to a book is the “Foreword”, not “Forward”. Easy to correct.

I will read and report shortly. Story continues here.

Also, just up at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Meditation really can change the brain

My experiences point to truth but yours are classic examples of brain rot? (Charlie Brown’s sister Lucy’s theory of psychiatry, but not a cartoon)

Jeff Schwartz lectures in Ireland on changing the troubled brain by changing the mind

Neuroscience: First detailed map of the Grand Central Station of the brain

Can languages be treated as if words were genes?

The Mindful Hack is news and views on the science of our brains. It supports the book The Spiritual Brain.

Comments

M. Baldwin, A) evolution is true. It is the mechanism for evolution that is under debate. If by evolution, you mean gradualism, one would expect to see 2 things. First, a gradual progression in the fossil record with clearly identifiable predecessors and the progression leading to a new species substantially different from the initial one in the progression and the new species would have novel complex functionality that did not exist in the initial one of the series. Now I am sure a better writer than I would express this more clearly. B) if ID was true. Pretty much what you see today. One problem with the ID position is that if the fossil record say in some unknown rock formation all of sudden came up with thousands of new species that could be the part of several transitions from various species to identifiable other species. So far that has not happened but it could. You see I have a different take then most on this forum. I believe evolutionary biology is a very serious science and is treated as such by its practitioners. I look at the continual sniping at it on this blog as childish and just as irresponsible as the Darwinists who act with open disdain towards those who believe in ID. However, the very serious science which is evolutionary biology as practiced by most in its field is completely consistent with ID. So why should those who espouse ID be so reflexively negative with the science of evolutionary biology. The answer is they shouldn't but should be over critical of the conclusions and implications espoused by evolutionary biology and not the science. People here fail to make the distinction most of the time. I am very different from Dave Scot on a recent comment he made. I do not want to buy Darwin, I want to demote him. His ideas work but are limited. So recognize his limited accomplishments and give him credit where credit is due but also point out his foolishness and how his arrogance led him to over reach and that he is not really a hero but in the end a minor player in the game but indeed a player.jerry_{July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Jerry, What would you expect to see in the fossil record if a) Evolution was true b) Intelligent design was true ?M.Baldwin_{July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

[rockyr] "Shermer rejects what he calls “God 1.0? (a “primitive” Jewish & Christian God), but is willing to believe in Kauffman’s sophisticated “God 2.0?, kind of Spinoza-Einstein god-nature of science." Interesting. If so, Shermer and Kauffman are advocating a return to the God of the 19th century evolutionists -- the Monistic God. Ernst Haeckel was its principal prophet. Funny how these things revolve in historical circles. Progress? The scholastic philosophers boiled down all the philosophic errors about God into two modes (not counting athiesm): deism, and pantheism. These two things keep resurfacing under different disguises. They were right.Vladimir Krondan_{July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

[zephyr] "There is something so incredibly arrogant and self-righteous about this Altenberg meet/affair (whatever they want to call it)." Yes, it's much like how Julian Huxley and J.B.S. Haldane developed a new religion (the modern synthesis) and decided that every biologist was supposed to believe in it.Vladimir Krondan_{July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

[Oleary] "So what IS the overall theory of evolution?" I don't think there is such a thing. One use of a theory is to give scientists a common framework for deciding the implications of things. For example, someone can do a computation of the orbital elements of an asteroid, and another astronomer can check this and say, hey, it doesn't add up. Others can look at it and note that the critic is in fact wrong: it does add up. This kind of communication and decision-making among scientists is possible because the theory is well defined. Everyone can more or less agree as to how orbital elements should be computed, what they mean, etc. Progress is possible, mistakes can be refuted, and good results can be verified. Not so with evolution. Evolution is not a theory in the sense that I have just described. If, for example, you derived implications from the assertions of an evolutionist and you show that they are at variance with observed facts, the response is either (A) you don't understand evolution, or (B) what the evolutionist said has nothing to do with evolution. It never leads to a correction in the evolutionist's original assertions. For example, T.H. Morgan thoroughly trashed sexual selection and natural selection in Evolution and Adaptation. That had no effect whatever. Both concepts are still taught as fact, 100 years later. There is no theory of evolution.Vladimir Krondan_{July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Daniel King, You said "If this means that the modern synthesis makes predictions that are not confirmed in the fossil record, please give an example of an unsatisfied prediction. (What should be found in the fossil record that has not been seen yet?)" The modern synthesis predicts gradual transitions from one species to another. For micro evolution which ID does not disagree with there is no challenge. For any species appearing for the first time with novel complex functionality, MS predicts it had a series of predecessors that would illustrate the transition from a species without the capability to those with the capability. Since we have instances of several thousand species in the fossil record with new functional complexity, one would expect at least a few sequences that would demonstrate the gradual transition from a species without a capability to one with the capability. But none exists that are not trivial gradual transitions from one species to another with no new capability. No transitions show how functional complex novelty occurred. If this is an incorrect statement then provide an example. You should be able to provide several examples if MS is correct for all evolution. One cannot claim inadequate sampling of the fossil record. That does not hold up. Each year there are new sites excavated for fossils. Each can be considered as a sample of the fossil record. Sampling is the basic process of probability. If the sample only has repeats of fossils from previous samples then the likelihood that there are other fossils that are still out there to be found from additional samples gets increasingly smaller as the total N of the number of samples gets larger. Each year N gets larger with few new fossils and nearly all repeats of already found fossils. Also the evidence shows that most of the fossil record has probably been sampled and it is very unlikely that there are missing un sampled parts of past species. If you like specific numbers then the following is from Denton’s Evolution, a Theory in Crisis: 1 - There are 43 known living orders of vertebrates and 42 have been found in the fossil record. Thus, it is very unlikely that there are unknown orders that existed for which there is no fossil representative. 2 - There are 329 living families of vertebrates and 261 have been found as fossils or about 80%. If one removes birds from this count there are 178 families of vertebrates and 156 of them have been found as fossils or 88%. The birds have only 70% fossilization. Thus, it is unlikely that there are many families that have existed but failed to be fossilized. Thus to argue the fossil record is incomplete when it seems to have been able to find most of the current vertebrate life forms and not to find any of the millions of transitional species that are necessary for gradualism is ludicrous. So I claim that there are no good transitions within the fossil record except for micro evolutionary changes without any really new capabilities. No transition documents the progress to a species with new complex functional capabilities which would be essential if the macro evolutionary part of the modern synthesis is true. To say that there is a high completion of the fossil record for known vertebrates but that the transitions predicted by the modern synthesis never got fossilized defies logic.jerry_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

jerry: "The modern synthesis is based on gradualism. There is no appearance in fossil record that supports gradualism except transitions among the same species which is really trivial." If this means that the modern synthesis makes predictions that are not confirmed in the fossil record, please give an example of an unsatisfied prediction. (What should be found in the fossil record that has not been seen yet?) GilDodgen: "The fossil record is profoundly, consistently, pervasively, overwhelmingly discontinuous." What else would one expect, given the conditions on the ground? Bearing in mind that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, especially in light of the sampling problem in paleontology: of all the organisms that have existed on planet earth, only a fraction would be expected to fossilize, and of those, only a fraction are situated in accessible places. "A few tortured examples are crammed into the Darwinian gradualism hypothesis..." Please cite a few tortured examples, and instances of cramming. "...with no way of establishing ancestor-descendent relationships." That might be a tall order, depending on your criteria for establishing such relationships. What are your criteria? Since the main issue is common descent (versus design), wouldn't something less stringent, such as features expected of descendants from a common ancestor, suffice to make the point? "Of course, the Darwinist’s excuse is that the fossil record is incomplete, but the more we learn about the record the more compelling the discontinuities become." Please cite a primary scientific publication to support that claim. If the fossil record is complete (representing a fair sample of what existed on the planet during its long history), when and by whom was that decided?Daniel King_{July 17, 2008
July
07
Jul
17
17
2008
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

This is news to me. Please enlighten.
The fossil record is profoundly, consistently, pervasively, overwhelmingly discontinuous. A few tortured examples are crammed into the Darwinian gradualism hypothesis, with no way of establishing ancestor-descendent relationships. Of course, the Darwinist's excuse is that the fossil record is incomplete, but the more we learn about the record the more compelling the discontinuities become. The primary axiom of Darwinian thinking is: When the evidence doesn't fit the theory, blame the evidence.GilDodgen_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, The modern synthesis is based on gradualism. There is no appearance in fossil record that supports gradualism except transitions among the same species which is really trivial. If this is news to you then you should enlighten the rest of the world including us because they/we do not seem to know it.jerry_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

jerry: "...the current theory cannot explain the fossil record..." This is news to me. Please enlighten.Daniel King_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

There is something so incredibly arrogant and self-righteous about this Altenberg meet/affair (whatever they want to call it). As if the recognition by an assorted group of scientists, academics and philosophers, that the neo-Darwinain synthesis bites off a whole lot more than it can chew, to understate the case immeasureably, means that it is now fair game to be challenged on scientific grounds, all of a sudden! (because it has the blessings, the seal of approval of the Altenberg 16 you see). Wow geewiz does that mean that it's not only Bible-thumping fire and brimstone bumpkins who sleep with their cousins who doubt the standard evolutionary dogma, and their Machivellean stealth-Creationist frontgroup the DI cabal, with their blueprint to turn the US into a theo-fascist state? But you mean shock gasp the SF Chronicle and Salon.com have not get the facts on evolution completely right, but oh well.. Oh thanks for clearing that up. So now I guess, thanks to the collective geniuses who are the A16, it is ok for others to come out of hiding (those of us who are not YECers you see) and say neo-Darwinism is incomplete as a theory of origins and change in natural living forms; because the Altenberg 16 have chosen to recognise (it would seem) very basic facts pertaining to genetics, paleontololgy, the actual empirical support for neo-Darwinism (see microevolution), straight-forward relatively basic facts pertaining to plant and animal physiology, animal embryogenesis, ontogeny in general, anatomy and microbiology (it would seem) that blew massive irrepairable holes in the walls of the Church of Darwin decades ago, before I was born for sure (I'm pushing forty). Heck at the Wistar Institute Symposium more than forty years ago the biologists had no answer to the mathematicians re the mathematical constraints on natural evolution that glaringly revealed the fundamental wishful thinking and fairy tale assumptions and science free speculations of the Darwinian faithful for what they are, which is why you don't hear anything about the Symposium in the first place. And its only got so much worse for the Darwinbots in this respect over the decades. What with the explosive revolution in microbiological knowledge, where the discovery of staggeringly complex metabolic pathways and macromolecule factories previously unimagined even by Darwin skeptics decades ago, translates (metaphorically speaking) to a mega-ton iron ball wrecker to the already crumbling walls of the Church of the scientific materialist faith. Do I need the blessings of the Altenberg 16 to mention this? As if not having their blessings will make the nanotechnology of the cell and its defiance of plausible neo-Darwinian pathways go away. Oh thank you Altenberg 16, without your imprimatur I would never have thought anything remotely unscientific about the cetacean evolution tale, excuse my sarcasm (in my mind the greatest and most comical sub-hoax within the broader fraud that is the fairly-tale of neo-Darwinian macroevolution, the greatest because really it is simply arguably the most implausible and impossible just-so fairy tale I have ever heard in the Darwinian literature, and that's saying a lot) and I would never have thought anything wrong about the Darwinian line on the supposed reptile-mammal transition and for that matter the Loch Ness monster to Minotaur to gryphon transition (oh sorry I mean the supposedly more plausible reptile-bird transition), unless the self-proclaimed giants in evolutionary thinking like Kauffma, Newman and Pigliucci dared to allow me to question all this. If you think I am being overly churlish and unappreciative of what is, I admit, a significant concession against the Church of Darwin from important figures in the word of the natural sciences, well let me stress this .... I am not going to hold my breath expecting any of these Altenburg folk to even give an inch to ID, and I include Mazur (who thinks she has got some kind of scoop). I mean Kauffman has been going round in circles for decades and Pigliucci misrrepresents ID almost as badly as the Panda's Thumb crowd. I predict that even if Mazur bothers to mention ID in her book (and she may have no choice, elephant in the room and all that, even if it's just in a footnote) it will be to dismiss it as a serious alternative to neo-Darwinism, unlike the "living unconscious matter organised itself" scenario which is really scientific 'cause we can cover this equally gobbledegook alternative to the Darwinian fairytale with highly scientifically impressive names that will fool most everybody. Here is one I throw in for free, "dynamic self-equillibrating low-entropy level bio-thermic macro-organisational animating systems". Or is that one taken already?zephyr_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

jjs P Eng, Thank you for the Pigliucci link. It is a very interesting article and one that should be read by anyone here interested in the science of evolution. From this article the following can be concluded: There is nothing in the article that is a threat to ID. It is 100% micro evolution and as such is completely consistent with ID. No where does Pigliucci claim any process that can explain the origin of novel functional complexity. There is a possible allusion to it with complexity theory but even this really doesn't meet the test of functional complexity. So ID should have no problem signing on to anything that will come out of the Altenberg conference unless some push the science past what it can show. Pigliucci is right in that the micro evolutionary process is very complex and needs to be augmented from what is currently in the modern synthesis (MS) but none of these augmentations really changes the fundamental nature of the MS and nothing in the MS or these changes is a threat to ID. The only problem is when those who espouse the MS go off and claim things for these processes that have not been shown or which defy the natural laws upon which they are based. Another conclusion is: That evolutionary theory is not in disarray as so often characterized here whenever anyone proposes something that is not compatible with Darwin's original ideas. Rather the current paradigm is not being changed in any way meaningful and only being augmented or extended. The fact that the current theory cannot explain the fossil record does not mean that the basic micro evolutionary process is wrong. It is just limited. And the recommended expansions will only advance our understanding of what happens to new offspring. Micro evolution is a process while macro evolution is not a process but an outcome so while they sound very similar they are really very different concepts. Darwin leaped to the macro evolution outcomes in his writings but he had no basis for doing so and neither has anyone else since. There is still no solution as to how new gene pools arrive on the planet but there is now more evidence on how they can change over time. And none of this evidence has ever pointed in any way as to how new functional complexity could have arisen.jerry_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

“Evolution is much more nuanced than the founders of the modern synthesis fully appreciated ..." Let's call this the John Forbes Kerry theory and then swiftboat it---meaning call attention to the fact that it's the same old thing we've seen before. Life is a test, and so also is the life of nations and of civilizations a test. Nothing is inevitable---free will being what it is. Therefore we gotta fight! Much appreciate your confidence and feistiness, Denyse!Rude_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Notice that Mazur refers extensively to the research of Dr. Stuart Kauffman, whom Michael Shermer in his latest July 2008 Scientific American column (p. 38) considers to be one of the pioneers of the complexity theory: http://www.ucalgary.ca/ibi/kauffman/ Shermer refers to Kauffman's new Book "Reinventing the Sacred". Rather than considering "design" in things, Kauffman is puzzled by the notion of "creativity" in evolution, and, looking for an explanation, needed to postulate a creative god-like principle: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman08/kauffman08_index.html or here http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman06/kauffman06_index.html Philosophically, one could consider design & creativity to be parallel notions. Shermer rejects what he calls "God 1.0" (a "primitive" Jewish & Christian God), but is willing to believe in Kauffman's sophisticated "God 2.0", kind of Spinoza-Einstein god-nature of science. Shermer says Kauffman is the "most spiritual and ecumenically tolerant scientist." It seems that science has proved if not the existence of God, at least a need for one. Oh well, we are all spiritual theists now, even atheists like Shermer...rockyr_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

The ID movement surely can take much credit for pointing out that the materialist emperor was bollock naked. Now there appears to be a scramble to hastily cover him so that he might have some credibility when he pronounces to the materialist faithful the details on how their new cabbage should be chewed.steveO_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

That's funny, Jerry. Because I just recently read that the pedantic distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is just hair-splitting by 6-day creationists. I guess in a way, it is good to find the materialists eating our lunch.jjcassidy_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

jerry said:
Anyone have any insights on what changes they envision to the current paradigm?
Massimo Pigliucci provided this essay. I've only partially finished reading through it. More of Pigliucci's views can be viewed here or here.JJS P.Eng._{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

If the girl's got any sense, she's got a big book contract in the offing, because Darwinism is the Enron of biology.
So true. Junior high school mathematics easily refutes Darwinian random variation and natural selection as the source of the highly sophisticated software information in living systems, and appeals to self-organization are equally ridiculous in light of what is now known. Self-replicating, information-processing, error-correcting, anti/neg-entropic software and hardware do not self-organize or come about by copying errors. Such silly speculation makes alchemy look like hard science, and attempts to defend it are quite frankly an embarrassment to real science. The emperor has no clothes, and is parading his nudity with pride, unaware of what a colossal fool he is making of himself.GilDodgen_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Well, CannuckianYankee, if so, I wasn't one such j and don't know of one. Apart from Mazur, I assume they would all be lads who would, well, you know, talk the talk. (Folks, it's OKAY! Darwin is STILL God!!). Yeah really. I already know a fair sample of the reasons the Darwinworld is collapsing. Quit waiting for legacy media to catch up. They'll go down shouting that Darwin is God. Let 'em, will you? Good quotes for our quote mine. See, basically, materialism is dead. Like, stone dead. Darwinism was only important for defending materialism. Which means it's dead too. Like the leg that breaks off a daddy-long-legs whose leg gets stuck in a crack when it REALLY wants to leave ... The leg still wiggles, but it's still dead. Go tell the news. Say I said so. Blame me.O'Leary_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Denyse: "If she blows it, I hope she leaves some scraps for my students." I was wondering, Denyse, the first article mentions that the A-16 might allow some Journalists to attend. Do you know of any?CannuckianYankee_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

"Wow, so creationist and IDers have repeatedly said that modern synthesis can’t account for everything and is a faulty paradigm and we’re labeled 'Bible thumpers, IDiots, and Science Haters.' But when these guys come out and say that modern synthesis needs an overhaul they are called something cool like the 'Altenberg 16' or the 'Scientific Woodstock.'" It's like the old fable(?) about the mountain that scientists are climbing and when they get to the top they come across the theologians who have been there all along. What should they do with the theologians? Symbolically kill them and take the loot, of course.CannuckianYankee_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Well, Jerry, much thanks for clarification. It all sounds to me like the elephantine efforts of the Communists to save their stupid, disastrous, collapsing system. I hope Mazur is j enough to get a good book out of all this, and not just defend the status quo. One definitely does NOT need to defend that sludge to make a living. Heck, one could market the post-Darwinian rubble as souvenirs. You know, the peppered moth, the Monarch-Viceroy, the one-damn-horse-after-the-other, the "tyrannosaur died out because they never guarded their eggs and mammals ate them" [hey, don't laugh too loud, we "learned" that when I was in grade school] ... Anyone want to rebend the Darwinfish?O'Leary_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Denyse, Denton said there was two evolutionary theories. He used the analogy of the specific and general theory to mimic Einstein's theories. In reality, the two theories are micro evolution and macro evolution. He designated micro evolution as the specific theory and macro evolution as the general theory. And by the way macro evolution has no good definition. There is plenty of evidence to support Darwin's specific theory or micro evolution but there is no evidence to support Darwin's general theory or macro evolution. Because people fail to make the distinction between the two all the time, they get mixed up. ID says there is no evidence for macro evolution and include in this OOL or that there is no evidence for any macro changes ever occurring. Little is ever presented for macro evolution by anyone that can escape even an easy scrutiny. The most common fall back by the Darwinist to counter this scrutiny is their claim that deep time cures all ills. However, there are no particularly good examples. However, micro evolution is a different story and from what I can gather is a lot of what the changes proposed by those challenging the modern synthesis is about. Most people do not make the distinctions that ID does and come here with all the great micro evolutionary examples expecting that ID disagrees with then will thus blow the ID people out of the water (witness the fish eye story last week that would completely befuddle ID). When they can't blow us out of the water, they either disappear or slowly get belligerent or condescending till they are banned. The few that stay here rarely provide anything of substance and end up sniping at the minor mistakes that people make here. When they do provide something of substance you can bet it only applies to micro evolution. What I believe the Altenberg conference will provide is just a lot of different naturalistic processes that affect the morphology and genome of organisms over time but never really change the essence of any organism. If they should provide things that will change the essence of an organism, it will be at best speculative and not based on any empirical information. There will be no unseating of selection as a major player in organism change over time and there will be no unseating of mutation as a player in organism change either. There will be no unseating of basic genetic process as operating for organism change over time either. In other words, nothing will be ditched. What will happen is that things will be added or that there are other processes that supplement these processes to cause organism change. All will be micro evolution and consistent with ID. But they will still worship that all powerful god of all, deep time. So we will be able to add to the list of things that causes organisms to change and there may be more complicated selection processes to add to plain old natural selection and drift but after the day is over it is all basic micro evolution with no amazing changes in the organisms and no new complex functional capabilities added except by that greatest of all naturalistic processes, deep time. A few will talk about some new forms of Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters with the hope they will not be as ridiculed as Goldschmidt was but I bet most will be talking about micro evolution or gradualism. That is my take on what is happening and it is all that Allen MacNeill has ever meant when he said that Darwinism is dead. So Darwin is dead; long live Darwin. Or the modern synthesis is dead; long live the better synthesis (bs) or whatever they want to call it.jerry_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

That doesn’t mean that the overall theory is of evolution is wrong, as some intelligent design proponents have tried to assert using Mazur’s story as support…” (Science Vol 321 7/11/08 pg 196) So what IS the overall theory of evolution? Is it Tiktaalik? Is it the Big Bazooms theory of evolution? Can anyone state it at present in a falsifiable way? Or have we gone beyond that, and are now coached by the Marketing department? If the girl's got any sense, she's got a big book contract in the offing, because Darwinism is the Enron of biology. If she blows it, I hope she leaves some scraps for my students.O'Leary_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

"That doesn’t mean that the overall theory is of evolution is wrong, as some intelligent design proponents have tried to assert using Mazur’s story as support…” I doubt that any of the people at the Altenberg conference would support anything that looks like intelligent design. They are mainly saying that all the naturalistic processes that affect changes in offspring are not well understood and may be more complicated than originally thought. In no way does this particular critical analysis of the modern synthesis pre suppose anything other than naturalistic processes causing changes in organisms or in their origin. It will be interesting to see if any of it is relevant for macro evolution other than pure speculation. Most of what I seen is just an expansive view of micro evolution which is consistent with ID. I am sure Mazur doesn't understand what ID is about or else they would not have given her access. Can you imagine they letting anyone write a story that says what they propose is consistent with ID. Anyone have any insights on what changes they envision to the current paradigm? It would be interesting to see what may be inconsistent with ID if anything.jerry_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

I just read the new Science magazine where they talk about the Altenberg 16. I love this quote "Evolution is much more nuanced than the founders of the modern synthesis fully appreciated, says Pigliucci. That doesn't mean that the overall theory is of evolution is wrong, as some intelligent design proponents have tried to assert using Mazur's story as support..." (Science Vol 321 7/11/08 pg 196) Wow, so creationist and IDers have repeatedly said that modern synthesis can't account for everything and is a faulty paradigm and we're labeled "Bible thumpers, IDiots, and Science Haters." But when these guys come out and say that modern synthesis needs an overhaul they are called something cool like the "Altenberg 16" or the "Scientific Woodstock."jpark320_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply