Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.

On May 26, 2:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 19, 9:39 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:29:16 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

Darwin provided a big idea and established the initial foundation.
 That
foundation has been entirely replaced (and one could make the argument
that it has been replaced twice over:  once with genetics and the
modern synthesis, and again with molecular biology).

"entirely replaced"

Gould 2002 and a vast majority of mainstream scholars say you are
completely wrong.

I just spent a semester learning firsthand what mainstream scholars think
via lectures and textbooks (and some really vicious problem sets).  Gould
wrote well and widely, but he'll be remembered more as a popularizer of
evolution than a scientist (and there's nothing wrong with that).

If you want to know what mainstream scholars think, then you're going to
have to read what they write for each other, not for wider audiences.

This comment says Gould was not a mainstream scholar. Of course your
belief is ridiculous. It seems you define "mainstream scholar" to be
those of whom you agree with.

No. He was saying that if you want to understand the science properly,
you shouldn't confine yourself to pop-science books. You certainly
aren't qualified to argue with mainstream science in any field if a
hostile reading of a few popular-science books are the limits of your
understanding.

Mainstream is pretty clear in most fields - if a majority of the
experts have a consensus, then that consensus would be mainstream
thinking. In science it is sometimes wrong, but since science looks at
the evidence, and looks for more evidence, these mistakes are
eventually corrected. This is not possible in theology, for example,
which does not look at the evidence.


Your comment also says that which is written for the public or wider
audience is somehow less accurate. Of course this belief is also
ridiculous. You have implied that evolutionists lie to the public.

It is always less complete, and often it is less accurate. This may be
because the nature of the subject is inherently difficult to
understand, and a less than thorough investigation leads to
misunderstandings. It may be the result of scientific outliers and
mavericks realizing that they can present their views to a more
credible audience.

This can result in something like most folks thinking Gould
represented the most common ideas in evolutionary biology; he did not.
His punk-eek was a respectable idea, but IIUIC, it was never
considered correct by a majority in the field. Or at least not
important to the degree Gould thought it to be.

Respectable scientists can get goofy ideas - Linus Pauling and vitamin
C, or Fred Hoyle and pansermia. How are the hoi polloi supposed to
evaluate them?

And then there are true goofballs like Veilikovsky and such.


If scholarship cannot be explained to the public it is illegitimate.

A field of true knowledge cannot be explained to everybody, if only
because of depth. Some, like you, seem to be determined to
misunderstand. Most can be explained well enough to suit the interests
of most people, however. Most folk's interest in evolutionary science
can be satisfied with a few magazine articles of a couple of TV
programs on PBS. Of course, they run the risk of being misinformed if
they take it no further.

Is that "explained"? Depends on how high your standards are, I
suppose.

Convincing other scholars and no one else is meaningless, private
knowledge.

Scholars do not typically hide their knowledge. I cannot play the
piano. Is that because musicians have withheld their knowledge, or
because I haven't practiced for ten years?

Sometimes, as in this newsgroups, scholars and interested amateurs
attempt to educate folks, but some are - for a variety of emotional
reasons - simply ineducable.






So, just for sake of argument, let's assume all Darwin's work on
barnacles, finches, pollination --- all if it is suddenly discovered to
be completely wrong.  While that is of historical interest, it wouldn't
affect biology at all, and that's because that data is no longer
foundational.

You could (for sake of argument) work your way through the entire
_Origin_ and show each line was either wrong or unjustified.  That is
perhaps a valid and even valuable contribution to the history of
science, but you've not touched biology at all.

Utter nonsense. "Origin" is a biology theory.

Yes, and it's no longer taught except as history.  

Completely false.

Believe it or not, Physicists do not study Newton; chemists may not
ever read Lavoisier, even in translation, and biology majors are not
required to read the Origin of Species. Science has advanced in 150
years, and scientists are expected to learn the material pertinent to
their field (to the degree on human can in a lifetime), but not to
know antiquated texts (however elegantly written).


The main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains ratified by
modern evolutionism. This is a round earth fact.

In addition to Gould, off the top of my head:

Ken Miller
Richard Dawkins
Janet Browne
Ernst Mayr
Michael Ghislein
Tim Berra
David Quammen
John van Wyhe
Jerry Coyne
Daniel Dennett

....have all written books establishing the round earth fact.

You're losing me. What round Earth fact - that Darwin had much of it
right? We have nonetheless learned much since then, and had to modify
his theory. He is *history*.

The above authors do not establish that biology student have to read
Darwin.


Modern evolution is built on Darwin 1859.

It started then. It is built on the facts accumulated since then, and
the multiplicity of theories subsumed by the phrase "theory of
evolution".


It started with "The Genetical Theory Of Natural Selection" (1930) by
Professor of Eugenics, Ronald Fisher.


What did? Are you suggesting that there were no books between OoS and
this? This is an important book marking the dawning understanding of
genetics.

You really have no idea as to what you are talking about.


I really have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want to
critique _Origin_, you're doing historical analysis, not scientific
analysis.  And that's fine, but don't expect biologists to get too
excited about it.

Their biology is based on Darwin 1859. You seem to think that modern
evolution has no beginning point.

You seem to think that there is no science done after its beginning.
This is either a profound misunderstanding or a demented
misrepresentation. Modern evolutionary *theory started with Darwin
(altho he had learned from others) but it continues apace.

And I agree that very many modern
evolutionists are completely ignorant, plagiarizers. These persons are
not scholars. They have passed classes like a mindless robot.

We only discard knowledge that turns out to be incorrect. Are
physicists "plagiarizing" if they use Newton's laws of motion, or
Feynman calculations? This is really a baffling "accusation". It is
clearly an attempt to insult or reveal something, but it only displays
the appalling depth of your scientific ignorance.

Mindless robots cannot do science, and rarely can manage a BS. They
usually major in business or theology, or perhaps earn a PhD in
education.




The **foundation** and **general structure** of the "Origin" is
vehemently defended by ALL scholars.

Not in graduate biology classes.  Not in graduate biology textbooks.

Have you had any college biology classes, Ray?

Those classes and textbooks are based on Darwin 1859.


Bwahahahaha!

And the phsyics texts are based on Galileo, and the medical schools
all use texts based on Galen, and Harvey.
<rolls eyes>

Your comments reveal yourself to be a yuppie.

<snort>


I suggest that you peruse a modern bookstore and see the number of
books written defending Darwin 1859.


You mean defending the science of evolutionary biology.





If you want to go after evolution, you need to go where the math is.
That's the current foundation.

LOL

Start with nothing later that Motoo
Kimura's "Neutral Theory" and work your way though Tomoko Ohta's
"Nearly Neutral Theory".  That's where the foundations currently are
for evolution (to the best of my limited understanding).

(There are many other pieces of the foundation as well; I don't want to
give the impression that Neutral Theory replaces evolution --- it just
happens to explain large swaths of the data we have available.  In my
instructor's words, it's a great null hypothesis.)

While the scientific literature is filled with critiques of "Neutral
Theory", there is still room for one more.  Critiques of Darwinism will
be relegated to the history shelf, though.  That's a respectable place
to be, but it won't change any science.

(2) everything else is more or less
falsified.

Assume that's true:  so what?  You haven't even started on the
genetics, much less molecular biology.  That's the current foundation.

You have provided zero support for your opinions.

No, I think I provided a specific citation to my opinions as well as some
quantitative data.

And your opinions
exist in direct contradiction to Gould 2002.

It might be more accurate to say that my opinions contradict your reading
of Gould.  

Contradiction.



Your opinion contradicts Barton's _Evolution_.  Since the
latter is a biology textbook, I think I'll stick with that.

As if the Harvard Professor
was completely wrong (that is what you are saying). How could a Harvard
Professor be so wrong and out of touch?

?

Again, it is YOU who is so wrong
and out of touch with mainstream scholarship.

Ray, I still have claw marks from mainstream scholarship that haven't
healed yet (the semester just ended last week).

Take a class, Ray.  It'll do you good.

Sorry Garamond.

Don't be sorry for me --- when I'm curious about something, I take a
class.  My papers get published.  After seven years I'm within two
semesters of graduating and will spend the rest of my life teaching and
doing research.  

Earlier you had mentioned that you thought the bibliography of your paper
should come last.  
That's not correct --- that's the first thing you
should write.  It gives you a sanity check on where your ideas fit in
with what has already been published.

Usually when I'm reading a paper, the bibliography is the first thing I
check after the abstract.  I'm looking for work I'm familiar with (both
good and bad) and a mix of dates that's biased towards more recent work..  
If I don't see many citations, I'm less inclined to take the author
seriously.  Ditto if all of the citations are from the last couple years,
or if there's nothing within the past five years.  

Granted, the bibliography will be revised as you write (along with
everything else), but if you don't have a draft version when you begin,
you're not yet ready to write.

I'd be interested in seeing your bibliography.  Please consider posting
it here.

<snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Look, don't worry about my bibliography.


Indeed. Note to Garamond - the last thing Ray wants is real advice on
writing a paper.

Fact: modern evolution is based on Darwin 1859.

Modern evolution is based on 150 years of data accumulated by hundreds
of thousands (if not millions) of scientists, some of whom predate
Darwin, most of whom have come later.


I am going after Charles Darwin. That is, his foundation and general
structure, that is, that which modern evolution is built and based
upon. When I topple that structure everything built on top goes with
it----EVERYTHING.

You might want to think of trying to topple Aristotle, or perhaps a
homo erectus. I'm afraid the only refutation you can use on Darwin is
updated information from scientists. And guess what - that information
is already incorporated in modern biology. You might want to consider
Darwin's belief in blended inheritance. That might be refutable...


Besides, evolution is an explanation of evidence. The explanation is
not eligible for falsification.

What do you mean by "eligible" here? And in the interest of clarity,
do you mean the observed evolution, or the theories of evolution used
to explain it?

Neither is how evolution occurs. It is only eligible to be modified (not falsified).

I'm having trouble parsing this. Many things could have falsified
evolutionary theory, but so far they haven't. Immutability of species,
perfect reproduction, cats giving birth to dogs, Cambrian mammals. So
far, nothing. Or course, since the data so far won't go away, it's
becoming harder to imagine what could falsify it at this point.

I am only obligated to explain why persons accept these explanations.

Bwhahaha! You have no evidence presenting problems for evolutionary
science, so you will present imaginary motives for scientists, hoping
that this will "refute" them. That's sad and funny at the same time.

I am also obligated to
produce scientific evidence showing the explanations false

In other words, you think you can falsify the, Cool.

and I am
obligated to produce scientific evidence showing Creationism-ID true.

If you want to establish Creationism as true, yes.

I can do both in spectacular fashion.

There would be no way to not be spectacular. You will be famous. I'll
be able to tell the grandkids ""I was there when..."


Ray

Eagerly awaiting,
Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... Creationism and theist suppositions ruled British science. ... also erudite in the history of biology, ... fact of evolution (which does not make them "evolutionists" - that term ... transmutation prior to Darwin, any transmutationism had to be sort of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Notes on a bicentennial
    ... Astronomy and Darwin in evolutionary biology. ... Most geologists in the early 19th century would have held to similar ... and biological evolution were taking shape and their work continued on ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Darwins false dichotomy fallacy.
    ... modern synthesis, and again with molecular biology). ... I just spent a semester learning firsthand what mainstream scholars think ... Modern evolution is built on Darwin 1859. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins false dichotomy fallacy.
    ... and again with molecular biology). ... I just spent a semester learning firsthand what mainstream scholars ... The main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains ratified by ... evolution works and can be verified true today without any ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Notes on the bicentennial of Lincoln
    ... Astronomy and Darwin in evolutionary biology. ... Most geologists in the early 19th century would have held to similar ... and biological evolution were taking shape and their work continued on ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading