Time to ditch natural selection?
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.”
Yes, CEH, but that is natural selection’s strength, not its weakness!
Any bimbo who can offer an opinion on Talk TV can “believe in” evolution. (Don’t ask him about the findings from the Large Hadron Collider or Saturn’s rings though … 😉 )
That’s the bar to clear. I believe that only the collapse of legacy mainstream media’s reputation as a serious source of information (resulting in a fire sale of bimbos) could help us clear it.
If governments adopt legacy MSM as their PR tool and try to suppress alternative sources, that will just turn the MSM into the old Soviet Pravda and TASS (no news in the truth and no truth in the news). So the news will still get out, just much more inconveniently.
Fortunately, the MSM seem to be extinguishing reasonable trust fairly swiftly.
Nothing is caused by natural selection. No evolutionist predicts natural selection. They never say (or can say) that “Given these boundary conditions, Gene X will mutate at the 152nd base, and this new adaptive function will result and overtake the competition.” Maybe under extremely well-controlled lab conditions with microbes they come close to this, but never in the wild. It’s always after-the-fact rationalization.
No, they never do and they never need to … yet.
Today’s selection theory seems very precise and mathematical. In journal papers, you can find neo-Darwinians measuring coefficients of selection and using them in differential equations. They speak of positive selection, negative selection, balancing selection, purifying selection, and epigenetic selection. In my experience, this is all hand-waving. … More.
Well, they get paid to do it and teach it.
See also: Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?
and Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back