Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
"Non selectionist." "Non-selectionist biological mechanisms."Wow, you Creationist sure have had to back-pedal a lot. First you abandoned explicitly talking about Creationism in favor of the "intelligent design" smokescreen, and now you're backpedaling from ID to "non-selectionist" now that ID doesn't disguise what you're trying to sell well enough.As far as what this person actually says about natural selection, it's pure balderdash. He argues briefly about spiral growth patterns in flowers and leaves being "nonrandom," as if that were somehow significant, rather than the direct results of steady growth. And then he has the gall to try and imply god by mentioning spiral galaxies and mineral formations - as if those required exact placement, rather than simple physics.I though he alluded to scientists afraid of what other scientist might think of them, for bucking neo-Darwinian orthodoxy?If he started insisting that the Earth wasn't round, but burrito-shaped, he'd be afraid of what scientists thought of him for that as well.You may note I don't say "other scientists." Neither Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini or Jerry Fodor is a biologist. Piattelli-Palmarini is a psychologist, and Fodor is a "philosopher." Neither does anything remotely resembling science in respect to evolution.I'm sure there is a suitable rationalization from the denialists who insist there is no pressure to conform in evolutionary biology.It depends on what you mean by "pressure." There's "pressure" in the sense that if you buck a theory that has been tested an confirmed as often as natural selection, you'd better have a pretty convincing argument and a mountain of evidence. That's how science works.I think that abandoning Darwinism (or explicitly relegating it where it belongs, in the refinement and tuning of existing forms) sounds anti-scientific.Probably because it is. No biologist talks about "body forms" as if there's something special about gross changes. It's Creationist-speak.Why has American science been slow to accept a reduced role for natural selection in evolution?Talk about begging the question. He might as well ask why American science has been slow to accept that electrons are actually microscopic meatballs. Of course, the irony here is that only in Fundy-riddled America has this nonsense gotten much traction at all. America has been the fastest to accept this guff.I'm sure there is a suitable rationalization from the denialists who insist there is no pressure to conform in evolutionary biology.I haven't read your posts in a while - when did you start larding your posts with this sort of well poisoning? From here, the "denial" is all on the part of the Creationists, who desperately deny all available evidence in order to satisfy their religious views. - Gus
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |