Monday, August 21, 2006
Can we get an apology?
I've heard SO MANY TIMES from evolutionists who complain that there is no difference between micro- and macro- evolution, and that the distinction is an invention of creationists who have their head in the sand. Now, the micro- macro- distinction is often used in evolutionary peer-reviewed literature (some even adding an in-between level -- meso), but the evolutionists who complain about Creationists not publishing in the peer-reviewed journals seem to not have read it. Now that PZ Myers is officially on record about the micro- macro- distinction, can all of the evolutionists who complained about this being a false distinction created by deceitful Creationists to apologize?
Just to clarify -- I don't think that PZ ever made this accusation. But I have been in a great number of evolutionary debates, and in nearly every one where the topic was discussed, they said that micro/macro was a false distinction created by Creationists.
(just to note, depending on how it's defined, Creationists don't necessarily disagree with macroevolution per se, either)
Just to clarify -- I don't think that PZ ever made this accusation. But I have been in a great number of evolutionary debates, and in nearly every one where the topic was discussed, they said that micro/macro was a false distinction created by Creationists.
(just to note, depending on how it's defined, Creationists don't necessarily disagree with macroevolution per se, either)
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 2:15 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
This is actually pretty funny - in your more recent post you are complaining that nobody really understands ID, and here you are acting as if you understand evolution..
Funny.
I suggest you read this:
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html
before demanding an 'apology'.
Technical terminology and terminology differentiation means different things to those within and without a particular field.
A quick excerpt:
"Nobody denies that macroevolutionary processes involve the fundamental mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic drift, but these microevolutionary processes are not sufficient, by themselves, to explain the history of life. That's why, in the domain of macroevolution, we encounter theories about species sorting and tracking, species selection, and punctuated equilibria."
So, macroevolution really is just microevolution - with larger timescales and a greater consideration for ecological and environmental impacts.
Funny.
I suggest you read this:
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html
before demanding an 'apology'.
Technical terminology and terminology differentiation means different things to those within and without a particular field.
A quick excerpt:
"Nobody denies that macroevolutionary processes involve the fundamental mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic drift, but these microevolutionary processes are not sufficient, by themselves, to explain the history of life. That's why, in the domain of macroevolution, we encounter theories about species sorting and tracking, species selection, and punctuated equilibria."
So, macroevolution really is just microevolution - with larger timescales and a greater consideration for ecological and environmental impacts.
"Nobody denies that macroevolutionary processes involve the fundamental mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic drift"
This is simply a false statement. There are many who believe otherwise. For instance, Margulis believes that symbiogenesis is the fundamental macroevolutionary mechanism, while Malcom Gordon thinks that it was horizontal gene transfer.
I don't know what Davidson thinks it is, but it does appear that he thinks that the mechanism for macroevolution is fundamentally different than that of microevolution.
Still others have defined macro- vs. micro- in context of which genes they are operating on (macro- operating on hox and other body plan genes).
So are you truly unaware of the range of ideas in your own field or are you just posturing and/or literature bluffing?
This is simply a false statement. There are many who believe otherwise. For instance, Margulis believes that symbiogenesis is the fundamental macroevolutionary mechanism, while Malcom Gordon thinks that it was horizontal gene transfer.
I don't know what Davidson thinks it is, but it does appear that he thinks that the mechanism for macroevolution is fundamentally different than that of microevolution.
Still others have defined macro- vs. micro- in context of which genes they are operating on (macro- operating on hox and other body plan genes).
So are you truly unaware of the range of ideas in your own field or are you just posturing and/or literature bluffing?
"Nobody denies that macroevolutionary processes involve the fundamental mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic drift"
This is simply a false statement. There are many who believe otherwise. For instance, Margulis believes that symbiogenesis is the fundamental macroevolutionary mechanism, while Malcom Gordon thinks that it was horizontal gene transfer.
It is a shame that such ideas have very little supportive evidence.
I don't know what Davidson thinks it is, but it does appear that he thinks that the mechanism for macroevolution is fundamentally different than that of microevolution.
John Davison? He stopped doping legitimate science in about 1976. His nutty ideas have aboutr as much evidenciary support as do Behe's or Dembski's. That is why he can only get his repetitive essays published in creationist-run journals. Like Wells - whose laughable ID-inspired 'hypothesis' on centriole function was essentially falsified by actual scientists. Poor fellow...
Still others have defined macro- vs. micro- in context of which genes they are operating on (macro- operating on hox and other body plan genes).
And that does not utilize mutation and NS? huh...
So are you truly unaware of the range of ideas in your own field or are you just posturing and/or literature bluffing?
Yes, that is always the case when the creationist's claims are shown to be less than concrete.
Did you bother to read the link? Doubt it.
As far as the range of ideas in my field - I tend not to put much stock in fringe ideas. I understand that creationists cling to fringe nonsense tenaciously, but I see little reason to do so until there is sufficient evidence.
Literature bluffing? You mean like that brain physiology paper bing a major ID paper?
Please... Biology is in fact not just like computer programming. When you realize this, your claims may start being less silly.
This is simply a false statement. There are many who believe otherwise. For instance, Margulis believes that symbiogenesis is the fundamental macroevolutionary mechanism, while Malcom Gordon thinks that it was horizontal gene transfer.
It is a shame that such ideas have very little supportive evidence.
I don't know what Davidson thinks it is, but it does appear that he thinks that the mechanism for macroevolution is fundamentally different than that of microevolution.
John Davison? He stopped doping legitimate science in about 1976. His nutty ideas have aboutr as much evidenciary support as do Behe's or Dembski's. That is why he can only get his repetitive essays published in creationist-run journals. Like Wells - whose laughable ID-inspired 'hypothesis' on centriole function was essentially falsified by actual scientists. Poor fellow...
Still others have defined macro- vs. micro- in context of which genes they are operating on (macro- operating on hox and other body plan genes).
And that does not utilize mutation and NS? huh...
So are you truly unaware of the range of ideas in your own field or are you just posturing and/or literature bluffing?
Yes, that is always the case when the creationist's claims are shown to be less than concrete.
Did you bother to read the link? Doubt it.
As far as the range of ideas in my field - I tend not to put much stock in fringe ideas. I understand that creationists cling to fringe nonsense tenaciously, but I see little reason to do so until there is sufficient evidence.
Literature bluffing? You mean like that brain physiology paper bing a major ID paper?
Please... Biology is in fact not just like computer programming. When you realize this, your claims may start being less silly.
"John Davison"
No. Davidson. As in Davidson and Erwin.
"Did you bother to read the link?"
I've read it before. I scanned it again this time. Not much new.
"As far as the range of ideas in my field - I tend not to put much stock in fringe ideas. "
So what? That doesn't make them irrelevant or wrong. Your claim was that macroevolution was only understood in ONE WAY by practicing biologists. This claim is clearly contradicted by a variety of scientists working directly on the question.
"Literature bluffing? You mean like that brain physiology paper bing a major ID paper?"
How is giving a specific paper bluffing? Bluffing is claiming that X is all that exists in the literature, hoping that the person won't go check. I, on the other hand, am _hoping_ that others will look at this paper, hence the reason I posted it.
"Biology is in fact not just like computer programming. When you realize this, your claims may start being less silly."
So something in biology makes it transcend the rules of information theory? Wow. Does it transcend the rules of chemistry and physics, too? What other parts of nature can you ignore when studying biology? Is math irrelevant, too?
The point of the paper (in case you missed it) is this -- the brain is better understood as being under the control of an overarching will than being strictly reduced to chemical components. This lends credence to the existance of agency, a core component of ID. This, in fact, is the subject matter of ID itself, starting from Johnson going through today.
Post a Comment
No. Davidson. As in Davidson and Erwin.
"Did you bother to read the link?"
I've read it before. I scanned it again this time. Not much new.
"As far as the range of ideas in my field - I tend not to put much stock in fringe ideas. "
So what? That doesn't make them irrelevant or wrong. Your claim was that macroevolution was only understood in ONE WAY by practicing biologists. This claim is clearly contradicted by a variety of scientists working directly on the question.
"Literature bluffing? You mean like that brain physiology paper bing a major ID paper?"
How is giving a specific paper bluffing? Bluffing is claiming that X is all that exists in the literature, hoping that the person won't go check. I, on the other hand, am _hoping_ that others will look at this paper, hence the reason I posted it.
"Biology is in fact not just like computer programming. When you realize this, your claims may start being less silly."
So something in biology makes it transcend the rules of information theory? Wow. Does it transcend the rules of chemistry and physics, too? What other parts of nature can you ignore when studying biology? Is math irrelevant, too?
The point of the paper (in case you missed it) is this -- the brain is better understood as being under the control of an overarching will than being strictly reduced to chemical components. This lends credence to the existance of agency, a core component of ID. This, in fact, is the subject matter of ID itself, starting from Johnson going through today.
<< Home
