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.
maybe. What is it?
> In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while.
Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.