Evolution can happen rapidly[1]. All the needed changes could have occurred over just a few generations.
It likely starts with chemical mimicry. I can't imagine that it didn't start this way as insects live in an umwelt dominated by chemical sensory input. The beetle is able to easily visit the nest, grab food and not be attacked. Their life cycle becomes more and more intertwined with the termites until they never leave the nest. The beetles whole body starts to transform under evolutionary pressures to produce an additional tactile mimicry. That's my just-so story of how it could happen.
It also probably works both ways - the termites evolve to better detect parasites, so simple mimicry that worked thousands of years ago wouldn't work today. Similar to the relationship of AV and malware.
It's not exactly what you described, but there are a few weird things. For example microsatelites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite that are small repeated regions in genes, that are difficult to copy, so they have a bigger mutation rate. They can function as tweaking knots when you consider times that involve many generations.
> It also probably works both ways - the termites evolve to better detect parasites, so simple mimicry that worked thousands of years ago wouldn't work today.
This might or might not be true. Birds are a good example - they are subject to parasitic mimicry.
One problem that a bird might have is that another bird lays one or more eggs in the first bird's nest. Theoretically, the victim bird will then incubate the egg and potentially feed and rear the nestling as if that nestling were the bird's own child.
There are several points in this process where the victim has the opportunity to defend itself:
- Ducks (at least some kinds) recognize the threat that another duck will lay an egg in their nest, and will fight approaching ducks to prevent them from doing this. But once the parasitic duck manages to get an egg into a victim's nest, the victim is not able to detect the foreign egg, and is stuck incubating and raising the adoptive duckling.
- Some birds learn to recognize their own eggs. If they come home and find a foreign egg in their nest, they will dump that egg onto the ground.
- Birds could theoretically be able to recognize nestlings of their own species. This would not help the ducks from the first example, who are victimized by their own kind. But it would help birds to defend themselves against cuckoos (and similar parasites), who lay their eggs in the nests of other species of bird. I am not aware that any species of bird has actually developed this defense, though I wouldn't be surprised if some have.
Anyway, what's relevant here is that all of these defenses have failed to develop in large numbers of birds that are subject to the relevant pressures. It's definitely possible that the same simple mimicry that worked 100,000 years ago works just as well today. But it's also possible that there's been an arms race.
It's important to keep in mind that selective pressure dictates how fast a beneficial mutation spreads in the population. If the terminte parasites were very rare, and there are only ever one or two per termite colony that eat a very small percentage of the food, any termite queen wo evolves the ability to recognize the parasite just a bit better would not have much of advantage compared to the other colonies. The positive mutation may be lost by chance again. However if the parasites were everywhere and take 50% of a colonies food, the small improvement in detection would lead to a significant advantage in reproduction of that termite colony, and thus the mutation would spread faster.
If you are curious, there is at least one bird species (the superb fairy wren) that has been observed to abandon its nest if a cuckoo chick hatches. They sing to their eggs, and fairy wren chicks later repeat a part of that song back to the parents, while cuckoo chicks do not: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/fairy-wre...
Only about 40% of fairy wrens abandon cuckoo chicks, which suggests that this may be a relatively new development in these birds' evolutionary arms race.
My understanding of the usual expression of cuckoos is that they hatch alongside the genuine nestlings and are then given all of the food, leaving the genuine ones to starve.
If that's right, abandoning the whole nest seems like a waste - it should still have viable wren chicks in it?
Particularly since the mechanism you describe involves recognizing the cuckoo as an individual chick (assuming there are also wren chicks in the same nest, they will repeat the song, so it's necessary to keep track of which chicks have done so and which haven't), it seems like a better approach would be to just kill it. Do you know if any wrens do that or might be moving in that direction?
(On second thought, I see that the National Geographic piece appears to say that the cuckoo chick will kill the wren chicks? That's not quite clear, since it also says the cuckoo will hatch first, so I'd expect it to be shoving "eggs" out of the nest rather than "siblings".)
In many cuckoo species, at least, the cuckoo chick knocks the other eggs or hatchlings out of the nest. I'm not sure if that happens with this particular cuckoo species, but it seems likely. Fairy wren nests are absolutely tiny.
In any case, fairy wrens are very fast reproducers (raising 2-4 clutches per year), so I imagine they just start over with a new nest when this happens.
Something really makes me question all just-so stories.
It’s not science. It paints a target around an arrow, the arrow being that all speciation must occur through random mutation and natural selection. Basically, the theory is unfalsifiable. It violates what Karl Popper was talking about.
Now, don’t get me wrong. The theory of common descent is falsifiable. The phylogenic tree can be discerned. But the idea that we have discovered all the mechanisms by which speciation (or “macroevolution”) has ever occurred despite never having seen any of them in practice, is in my opinion bad science.
And just-so stories are almost self-admitting that it’s more folklore than science.
If you think I’m being too heterodox with my opinions, consider the just-so stories in the field of evolutionary psychology and extrapolate to all the phenotypes that are being described.
But actually it seems worse than that because the math doesn’t seem to work out. What evolutionary advantage does a wing give before you can even glide? In the generations where it doesn’t accomplish much, it would seem that a random mutation would be far mord likely to disappear than take over a population. A mutation like proto—wings is likely to be extremely rare while the individuals’ genetic fitness may have increased by say 10%, although that is extremely generous considering the proto-wing confers no advantage and might be seen as freaky and unusual by the mates in the intermediate state. But even with an increase in genetic fitness, it is a tiny tiny effect. For it to take over the entire population eventually, or create a major branch within the population that has some “Lamarckian” direction towards a fully-working wing, seems extremely far-fetched.
Are you fundamentally dissatisfied with the current limitations of our understanding and believe they need improvement or do you believe they ought to be abandoned? Just so stories can certainly be unsatisfying as they are insufficient pictures we feel compelled to create even when we lack too much in fine details like assembling bits of bone into fanciful and sometimes wrong creations that never walked the earth but consider that logically the fidelity of such pictures ought to improve over time as those fine details are studied. Changes even revolutionary changes in our understanding of the fine details are apt go go unnoticed by most until such time as they fundamentally alter large scale pictures people outside the sciences are apt to want to attend to.
Consider the wing there is reason to believe that it may have been beneficial before it was useful for flight.
”there is reason to believe” is a very low standard that falls short of what most people use in life. When there is no proof one way or the other, belief is a personal choice. But when one theory is systematically pushed against all others, I think it is normal for thinking people to subject it to critical scrutiny.
In any other area of life, we’d require this if we wanted to be objective. For example, when solving murders, the idea that they can only be committed by men (ie random mutstion and natural selection) might lead to problematic cases (ie wings) where there is no clear scenario that fits all the data.
One might question the underlying premise (all murders have always been commited by men) and suspect a woman. Suppose this leads to a bunch of plausible hypotheses that a woman committed the specific murder in question. But a trained “detective” could concoct lots of plausible-sounding just-so stories of how various men did it, instead.
In this situation, let’s take a step back and see what we have. We have just-so stories, with some connection of reality, because they have been selected out of possible stories to have that quality. We also have evidence against each story. Let’s say that in a specific case, all stories about men doing murders have a lot more evidence against them than the woman stories. What then?
The situation here is actually more empirical than neo-Darwinianism because we have compelling evidence and argument for men committing murders which we have observed. We know we have been able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt many times. Whereas we have not been able to observe how speciation occurs in the vast, vast majority of (perhaps all) cases. We just know it occurs.
So to say that it occurs excludiveky by method X is simply a hypothesis. And you can’t prove the hypothesis by concocting fanficul just-so stories and claim victory because they have some connection to reality!
Perhaps the reason this isn’t scientific is because the stories have been selected to fit the conclusion, rather than being picked from the evidence in the environment. If you are exercising selection on the side of the story to such an extent, then you can find “reason to believe” anything anywhere. Just like a Marxist or a Freudian psychoanalyst. The theory is unfalsifiable!
Given how modern science is hyped up to the public, it's really hard to admit you don't know and _can't_ know.
And yet it's actually obvious to a careful thinker that we really can't know whether evolution occurs exclusively by established methods. We know we have CRISPR, so at least this hypothesis is not true today. How high is the possibility that CRISPR was performed by some mysterious entity in the past millions of years?
Not even talking about alien stuff -- is it really not possible at least that some other animal, eg. some form of dinosaur, had invented this technology and later got wiped out by some global cataclysm? They had hundreds of millions of years to do this.
Of course we don't have any evidence either way -- and for some reason Occam's Razor tells us that we can just assume the simpler story is the actual story. Even if, as mentioned, there's actually no evidence either way.
It is without doubt that the earth is home to a wide variety of life that procreates similar but not identical forms. Those forms which are more suitable for the present environment are on average more successful in procreating while others have fewer or if their differentiation is particularly negative have none or even fail to launch as it were.
We can observe especially in simple life with short generations accumulating changes. Claiming small changes don't accumulate would be like claiming water drips in a bucket but never fills up. There are plenty of arguments to be had about details and mechanics but there is no competing alternative to evolution. Do you disagree?
I don’t think he was denying evolution. He was suggesting that maybe slow, random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.
I’m not saying there’s an intelligent creator (I personally don’t believe in one), but perhaps the way genes mutate is more “intelligent” than we think. In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. That seems kind of “intelligent”.
Maybe it’s kind of like the exploration/exploitation tradeoff in RN.
Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories
In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc.
Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns.
Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma.
However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there.
But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest.
> maybe. what is it?
Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
> Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories
If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please.
> In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history
What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else?
> just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest.
Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself.
I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
(edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes
"and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
>> Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries?
> Yes
The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”.
The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject.
I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something.
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions.
“Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence.
What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic.
But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.
A newly described fossil is as old as the “first bird,” Archaeopteryx, and represents a birdlike dinosaur that might have specialized in running or wading instead of flying
A remarkable fossil record of the dinosaurs that led to birds reveals how evolution produces entirely new kinds of organisms
This is not 'the truth!!!', it's just science's best shot at explaining. It will be wrong in parts, it could be wrong overall, but it's the best we've got.
> The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information
You asked, I answered.
> The goal is to mutually improve understanding
Agreed. So what is your alternative? I am aware of the Lamarkian effect of methylation on DNA, and I'm vaguely aware that there might be another mechanism at the cellular level. I'm also aware of Darwin's gemmules theory which I understand is thoroughly discredited now. You seem very determined not to say what you're proposing.
> I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent
True. It was a course at school, and that was a long time ago. It was also rather Western-centric. Nonetheless, I did. As far as recommending a book, you clearly haven't even done a web search. There's plenty out there. Regarding my preference, there was a book (which I can't find now), an old Penguin book on the history of mathematics, but so old it's price was in pounds, shillings and pence. I wish I could find it, I'd love to reread it.
Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
> “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories
Nope. "In biology, evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations" (wiki)
If you disagree with that, please post some specific links, I would actually be interested.
> If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
Yes. It's a placeholder theory. When something better comes along we replace it with the better thing. What do you suggest?
What's weird about arguing with you is you say we should be using something better but do not say what that better thing is.
> My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
It's the best hypothesis. It may not be right, but we can never be certain of what is right. If something arrives that better explains, we accept that instead. That's how science works.
> I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms
You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
You come across as somebody who just wants to discredit science without proposing something better (or are you religious?, Or just a teenager looking for attention?). You are not arguing in good faith.
I am not wedded to a particular viewpoint within science. If you can propose something better, even as a link, please do. I like the idea of Lamarkian development, it's just that, excepting methylation, there is no evidence of it that I'm aware.
>> The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information
>You asked, I answered.
Yeah, but saying "Yes". You want me to answer like that too?
> Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it
Thanks! I will take a look. I am interested in learning more about the history of science and how people got past erroneous theories.
>> I think I have been quite clear
>Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
It's not about "my" alternative. Saying that something isn't scientific doesn't require me to come up with alternatives. For example someone could talk about spontaneous generation, and if I questioned it, coming up with a bunch of just-so stories about how spontaneous generation could be working, isn't doing science. It's just a narrative, same as Marxism or Freudian psychology etc.
If someone said "well what's YOUR alternative to Freudian analysis" that wouldn't require someone to come up with a whole other theoretical framework (e.g. behavioral psychology) in order to criticize Freud or Darwin or Marx etc.
> You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
All these just-so stories are problematic. The biggest problem is that they are just that -- stories. They are not testable. And if you debunk one, someone can just come up with 800 other ones.
It's a bit like the criticism people have of string theory not being testable. You could say "well, what's YOUR alternative to string theory?" But that is beside the point. Same with multiverse theory explaining fine-tuning etc.
And by the way, I don't see much difference between postulating a multiverse with no evidence, or theism, to explain fine-tuning. And similarly, if atheists believe we are living in a simulation, I don't see much difference between that and theism. In short, we just don't know, and most of these alternative theories seem to just reflect a psychological bias (e.g. towards an idea that we can explain everything using a small set of mechanisms that we have already discovered). It's similar to hidden variable theories favored by proponents of determinism, or interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causation or locality etc.
In all these cases, you may have a preconceived notion (e.g. in Darwinism) that biases what you could believe was the case. And in Darwinism, your notion is that all speciation comes about through random mutation and natural selection, so in every case you comfort yourself with stories of how it could have happened.
Anyway, my whole point is that concocting just-so stories is not a valid scientific approach to figuring out how things work.
I don't have time for this. You clearly don't understand how science is done. Scientists propose hypotheses, the hypotheses are tested and rejected if falsified (there's your Popper).
Just because something isn't testable today doesn't mean it isn't tomorrow. Back in the 1970s black holes were little more than theories the concept that we could actually test for them physically would have been beyond belief. It would simply not have been comprehensible. Well, today we do.
I don't buy the multi-verse, I find it as stupid as you do as a proposition because by definition it can't be tested (AFAIK). The evolution of flight, watching an animal attempting to use its wings for other purposes such as wing assisted incline running (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing-assisted_incline_running), that's doable and to my knowledge has and is being done.
Like I said, I don't have time for this. You ain't going to learn anything from me, nor I from you given the woolyness of your posts and your unwillingness to propose something different/better. I'll stop here.
I read your posts on the future influence in the past. AFAIK this is being proposed at the quantum level, I'm not aware of anything 'higher up'.
“I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it. I see its importance—it’s fun for some people—but I don’t have the patience for it. If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?” (Daryl J. Bem, in Engber, 2017)
also http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2014/06/25/a-skeptics-re... but I don't like this: "If ever there was a paper that showed the futility of meta-analysis, this one is it. Here we have one of the most ridiculous claims that intelligent people have ever dared to make (yes; the hypothesis that aliens built the pyramids is more plausible than people being able to look into the future) – and a meta-analysis supports this claim. The unavoidable conclusion is not that psi exists; rather, it is that meta-analysis is a tool that is fraught with danger". The other points are perhaps valid.
You talk about science but don't have the basic critical thinking to look for opposing viewpoints. You should be seriously embarrassed.
Have you actually read it? What makes you think I haven’t looked into it? In fact your article just proves my point. It lists four hypotheses, ie just-so stories, each of which slavishly following the model of random mutation and natural selection. Not only does this not prove a theory, but even on their own terms they are highly problematic. For example to quote your own article:
Although the evidence in favor of this model is scientifically plausible, the evidence against it is substantial. For instance, a cursorial flight model would be energetically less favorable when compared to the alternative hypotheses. In order to achieve liftoff, Archaeopteryx would have to run faster than modern birds by a factor of three, due to its weight. Furthermore, the mass of Archaeopteryx versus the distance needed for minimum velocity to obtain liftoff speed is proportional, therefore, as mass increases, the energy required for takeoff increases. Other research has shown that the physics involved in cursorial flight would not make this a likely answer to the origin of avian flight. Once flight speed is obtained and Archaeopteryx is in the air, drag would cause the velocity to instantaneously decrease; balance could not be maintained due to this immediate reduction in velocity. Hence, Archaeopteryx would have a very short and ineffective flight. In contrast to Ostrom's theory regarding flight as a hunting mechanism, physics again does not support this model. In order to effectively trap insects with the wings, Archaeopteryx would require a mechanism such as holes in the wings to reduce air resistance. Without this mechanism, the cost/benefit ratio would not be feasible.
But consider even if the just-so stories were somewhat believable. What exactly does it prove? Isn’t it simply digging the heels in and doubling down on the original framework being the only one?
The style of this comment is exactly the sort of religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter on this topic. Very low on substance, high on bluster. When the evidence or argument is not on the side of your dogma, is best defense is a good offense, eh?
This kind of passive-aggressive comment is oozing self-assuredness while clearly having never delved into the material, nor ever read the thing they linked to. It’s almost as if they have just googled it briefly, found a wikipedia article, and said “you are totally mistaken! See, just a minute of googling will have shown how deluded you are, you unbeliever / heterodox person / whatever.”
Except your article doesn’t do what you hope it does, and most of the substance of your comment is an adhominem swipe at whoever dared question the premises. You’re hoping there’s something in the article you barely read, to answer the major issue, without bothering to delve into it yourself. Or perhaps the person will be embarrassed enough by your bluster, to stop questioning. Either way, a win for the dogma.
Imagine in any other area of life (eg solving a murder) if you always drew the target around an arrow (eg assuming that murders are always done by men) and then in every tough case came up with a million plausible but problematic just-so stories that always follow the model. What would it prove? Rather, the fact that the you keep concocting problematic stories in itself may reveal a major bias towards your underlying hypothesis, which makes you less objective as a scientist (or detective, or whatever in other areas of life).
It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, ‘What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?’
To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those other three theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it that I merely felt mathematical physics to be more exact than the sociological or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as sciences, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy.
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment.
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper—and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their ‘clinical observations’. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. ‘Because of my thousandfold experience,’ he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: ‘And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.
That is what just-so stories are for adherents of neo-Darwinianism!
I'm over here in my little corner of the world pumping my fists reading your posts in here.
>religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter
This describes it precisely. I'm sure it's partly rooted in a long history of disingenuous arguments starting in the same way, particularly those that jump from something that has any scientific basis at all right to full on metaphysical or spiritual explanations.
I'm sure it's also rooted in much of the same psychological underpinnings of evangelists allowing for thought tinkering at the edges of scripture but protecting the tenets of their faith quite literally with their lives.
Yes. The author of Darwin's Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection agrees with you. The view that only natural selection determines evolution is the (neo-)Darwinism view, but there are more modern views as presented by Frank Ryan in aforementioned book.
if the main point is about speciation, mainstram theory is not just random mutation and natural selection. one of old typical theory is Allopatric speciation, just random mutation accumulate and then cause mating become imposible, so this is easier than random mutation and natural selection. in current 30 years, vast amount of possible mechanisms of speciation has proposed.
The word "falsifiable" does not mean the thing that you are using it for. It sounds like you are using it to mean "it was proven wrong." When talking about theories, a theory that is not falsifiable is one that could not be ever proven wrong.
The best theories are falsifiable, but have a lot of evidence pointing for the theory, and little or no against it.
They didn't say "falsifiable", they said "falsified" -- their word usage was correct: something the is Xifiable can be Xified. "falsified" does indeed mean "proven wrong" -- check your dictionary. (However, they are not correct that the theory of common descent has been falsified. And I have no idea what "Jesus is King" even means, nor is it relevant.)
The idea that there is a tree of sexual reproduction that can attribute for the current variation in genetic material has been disproven. That's where "horizontal gene transfer" theories come in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
If something has been falsified, then it is clearly not unfalsifiable. If something is false, it's a much stronger claim than that it is simply falsifiable. That is the case here. What's your point?
I follow Jesus, that's what it means to be a Christian. He never said we have to take all of the Old Testament at face value (even though I never claimed I didn't). In fact His earthly mission was to inform us that it was out of date and He had the new Gospel, and many of his recorded words were dedicated to deriding those who followed the Old Testament legalistically.
Edit: if you actually would like a literalists interpretation of the flood, you could do worse than call up The Narrow Path radio show I linked above from 2-3 PM Pacific time and ask. The host is a full literalist and would be happy to talk.
He's saying that His coming has fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, and that the other prophecies of the Old Testament are still in effect.
Please read a list of translations of that verse here, along with the original Greek https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm and come to your own conclusion of whether it has anything at all to do with a literal interpretation.
Wrong again. In fact, I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, and I even studied biology at a top university. I only converted when I saw how incomplete that narrative was (and, following that, how much better the Abrahamic narrative fit my personal experience and observation).
Do you have an evolutionary explanation for the butterfly?
So you stopped believing things that science has proven right, and switched to believing things science has proven wrong.
Simply changing your beliefs isn't enough, you have to change them from worse to better, not from an incomplete but self improving modern scientific narrative to an incoherent and false stagnating bronze aged mythological narrative (which is so ridiculous on its face that children can easily through see it, like your Noah's Ark story that you choose to ignore, or the fact your "good book" that's supposed to give moral guidance doesn't prohibit slavery, but does treat women as property), but here you are proudly bragging that you went the opposite direction.
Just as I predicted, you just dig deeper in when proven wrong.
So what is it about the Abrahamic narrative that appeals to you so much that you reject the very science that makes it possible for us to communicate, and to live long healthy lives?
The pro-slavery, anti-women stuff? To me, that's a strong reason to reject your bible as a source of moral or scientific guidance. But you be you, if you desperately need justification for your bigotry and hatred and subjugation of women and slaves.
>In 1 Peter 2:18-20, slaves are ordered to "in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
>1 Corinthians 14:34–35:
These verses read in the Authorized Version "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Don't even bother trying to defend and rationalize the Bible's support of slavery and subjugation of women, or your belief in it. You're not going to convince me or anyone else to support slavery or abuse women. Evangelize your bigoted bronze age religion to somebody else, or simply give up and stop spreading your bigotry and hatred and anti-science propoganda.
Again, can you explain the butterfly? If not, find Axioms that can, or live in darkness, rejecting all understanding of universal truth. Those are the options.
Your mortal misgivings about a divine message are irrelevant. Consider: If, somehow, you knew for an absolute fact that the creator of the universe, the one who engineered everything about you, the world, the cosmos, "science", ethics, morals, and all else besides, said "women shouldn't speak in churches instead they should ask their husbands back home", would you tell them you know more about right and wrong than them? Or would you consider that there might be nuance to the topic and try to learn more about what they mean and why they say it? There's a ton of context to Corinthians you've left out. I'm sure you know that and are just being pretend-dumb so I won't go into it. And the world as we know it wouldn't exist without slaves, and the rejection of slavery as we know it wouldn't exist without Christians. So I'll call that a wash. If anything, the introduction of Christ led to the abolition of slavery, so that'd be a +1. All your "science" did was come up with bogus justifications for it based on skull measurements. Can you think of any of your "science" today that is focused on taking irrelevant measurements and then going to the public with creative spins on them to justify horrific practices? I can!
But I haven't rejected any science that allows us to communicate. In fact, I haven't rejected any science at all. What I've rejected is the pseudo-"science" that has become increasingly popular whereby an explanation is proposed, no relevant tests are (or can be) done, no relevant observations are (or can be) made, tons of aspects of the question are left unanswered and unanswerable, and yet people still decide it is the answer. Always by assuming that no divine intervention has happened.
Indeed the entire "historical-scientific" belief structure must be predicated on faith in lack of divine intervention to make any sense at all. It would be far better referred to as the faith-based religion of "Scientology", if that wasn't already taken.
But since your so persistent, what is it about the story of the Ark that you believe the all powerful creator of the universe would be unable to actualize?
As a German speaker it felt really weird reading it. Like your brain is in English mode, reads over the word, then backtracks, switches to German, reads it again and then continues with English.
I have a lot of appreciation for some specialized German words, such as Fingerspitzengefühl, Wanderlust, Zeitgeist, or Schadenfreude, but why Umwelt? It can just be translated to environment.
it is the environment _as experienced_ by an organism. Me and my dog can have the same environment, but we'll have different umwelt, because mine is primarily visual but his has a much larger scent component.
"such as Fingerspitzengefühl, Wanderlust, Zeitgeist, or Schadenfreude, but why Umwelt?"
Wanderlust, zeitgeist and schadenfreude are all English borrow words. Fingerspitzengefühl isn't (too complicated) and umwelt might well have just started to wriggle its way in!
I love a good Germanic compound word as much as the next anglophone but it needs to be mostly pronounceable on sight to stand a chance of being co-opted. That's one reason why the delightful sounding gewerbegebiet won't replace industrial zone.
Umwelt is suitably short and subtly different from environment. I suggest we nick it.
Okay I agree then on nicking Umwelt since it has a different meaning.
Since we’re discussing language and HN is a place to discuss, are you sure Fingerspitzengefühl is too difficult? The "ei" and "tz" sounds in Zeitgeist also make it a difficult word.
Yes I am sure! Zeitgeist: many (some) anglophones know that the German Zeit is "time" and geist looks similar to ghost and that riffs with spirit and off we trot. Besides it is generally pronounced (the spirit of the time) as something like "zyt'gyst". I lived in West Germany for a few years as a child so I go in with the tz sound on the initial Z. I have never heard anyone get the geist bit wrong. We are well used to weird diphthongs.
Fingerspitzengefühl suffers from being a bit much for us. We like it verbose but there is a threshold.
We have a word: floccinausillihillipillification (I may have misspelt it) which means something daft and was dreamed up by a Victorian gent. Can't be bothered to look it up. It was a bit silly (hilly etc) and was probably a response to a conversation like this 8)
OK lets have a go: finger (must be finger) ... spitz (I know that means point or peak - I've skied on a few - but most anglophones don't) ... engefühl (no idea). I'll guess at "fidget spinner"
... search ... how wrong can I be! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerspitzengef%C3%BChl and also that article is talking complete and utter bollocks when it states that word as an English borrow word. We love to pinch other languages words and concepts but Fingerspitzengefühl is too long, even for me.
At 20 letters it's a suitably 'difficult' word even if it were actually an English one with familiar pronunciation. It being a German compound word makes it's usefulness to the general English speaking population highly questionable.
I would bet money that 2/3 or more of the people I know, keeping in mind that my technical acquaintances are only a small fraction, don't know Zeitgeist enough to pronounce it properly or even give a definition for it if asked.
I believe loan words only happen when the word makes some level of sense to speakers of the new language. Like, wander lust is almost understandable as English.
Fingerspitzengefühl is complex enough that I'd assume people who never studied German can't even split it into the words it comes from, to guess how to pronounce it.
In Dutch probably the most frequently used German loan-word is "uberhaupt"; it's probably used in the same connotation as "anyway" is in English, as in, "I wouldn't want to do that anyway".
> Made famous by zoologist Jakob von Uexkull in 1909, the term Umwelt refers to the perceptual world experienced by each animal, a highly specific kind of "sensory bubble." When we walk our dog and she stops to smell every other bush or car tire, she's taking in through her acutely sensitive nose smells that we take in faintly or not at all. That's because humans and dogs have two different sensory bubbles, or Umwelten.
It likely starts with chemical mimicry. I can't imagine that it didn't start this way as insects live in an umwelt dominated by chemical sensory input. The beetle is able to easily visit the nest, grab food and not be attacked. Their life cycle becomes more and more intertwined with the termites until they never leave the nest. The beetles whole body starts to transform under evolutionary pressures to produce an additional tactile mimicry. That's my just-so story of how it could happen.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7818422/