James A. Shapiro, _Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Fortified_ (2022)
2) Since the 2016 Royal Society “New Trends in Biological Evolution” conference at the Royal Society in London, which Shapiro helped organize, the old-school Neo-Darwinists have gone silent.
This is because Neo-Darwinism is utterly impossible to defend.
These men should frankly be ashamed at their overt efforts to obstruct the process of science, especially during the last 30 years.
I attended the Royal Society meeting in person, and it was a remarkable de-throning of what prior to that time was an unassailable cabal of bullies.
The present task is now to disseminate accurate information.
Porphyry: That is a random out-of-context quotation from an amazon review left by a guy who seems to be a marketing consultant.
Exactly. He’s not familiar with the material and is quote mining. I quickly realized that when he proved unfamiliar with a Sagan book he referenced.
Engaging with him is not worth the time or energy. Or thread space.
At this point I’m just having fun; I stopped taking these threads seriously a long time ago.
But, insofar as we are concerned about lurkers’ impressions, I think we could reasonably add to the axiom–“never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake”–the corollary, “keeping giving your opponent opportunity to repeat his mistake.”
“amazon review left by a guy who seems to be a marketing consultant”
Do you think the guy did, or didn’t, attend the 2016 conference he claims to have attended?
“the reviewer is very much convinced that evolution is accurate,
and he is reviewing a book that very much thinks evolution is accurate”
Meaning of “evolution”?
“proved unfamiliar with a Sagan book he referenced”
How did you determine that he was unfamiliar with the Sagan book?
“He’s not familiar with the material and is quote mining”
Do you see any out-of-context quotes in this?:
Essay “Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Porphyry wrote
For anyone interested, here is some context.
Let me add this here book edited by Massimo Pigliucci, geneticist and philosopher of science.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From the Amazon blurb-
Prominent evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey recent work that expands the core theoretical framework underlying the biological sciences. In the six decades since the publication of Julian Huxley’s Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, the spectacular empirical advances in the biological sciences have been accompanied by equally significant developments within the core theoretical framework of the discipline. As a result, evolutionary theory today includes concepts and even entire new fields that were not part of the foundational structure of the Modern Synthesis. In this volume, sixteen leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey the conceptual changes that have emerged since Huxley’s landmark publication, not only in such traditional domains of evolutionary biology as quantitative genetics and paleontology but also in such new fields of research as genomics and EvoDevo.
I provide the link because this work was stimulated by, and in large part a product of, the so-called Altenberg 16 “controversy”. Evolutionary Biology didn’t really begin until the “modern synthesis” of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel’s ideas on heredity into a joint mathematical framework. There is no such thing as “Darwinism”. Darwin began something. He didn’t end it. And because he was describing processes observable in nature his personal opinions or failures are completely irrelevant. Of course there are arguments within the field! That’s a sign of vigor, not weakness. Creationism and Intelligent Design are sad and pathetic. The real work is being done elsewhere.
Pigliucci, aside from having a wonderfully musical name, is an unusual academic. Much less known than he should be. He began his career as a geneticist and ecologist. But he switched focus mid-career and became a philosopher. He writes a lot about the so-called “Demarcation Problem”. What separates science from pseudo-science? What does it mean to say you’re doing science? Consequently he’s written a couple of interesting books on the subject.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I think you can tell by the titles the tenor and approach of these two books. Pigliucci does have an ongoing social media presence if you’re interested.
Folks let me conclude by saying that if we found out that aliens were heading for earth, Pigliucci would be my choice for our ambassador.
Wistar mathematical challenges neo Darwinian
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In 1966, the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology hosted a symposium, which brought together mathematicians and biologists to discuss the mathematical foundations of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. This event marked a significant milestone in the history of evolutionary theory, as it highlighted the need for a more rigorous mathematical framework to support the theory.
Key Findings and Critiques
Mathematicians raised concerns about the lack of mathematical rigor in the neo-Darwinian theory, particularly in regards to population dynamics and the probability of evolutionary transitions.
Critiques included:
Insufficient mathematical modeling: The theory relied heavily on qualitative descriptions rather than quantitative mathematical models.
Lack of predictive power: The theory failed to provide precise predictions about evolutionary outcomes or rates of change.
Inadequate treatment of stochastic processes: The theory did not adequately account for the inherent randomness and uncertainty in evolutionary processes.
Notable Participants and Contributions
Peter Medawar: A prominent biologist who participated in the symposium and later wrote about the need for a more mathematical approach to evolutionary theory.
C.H. Washington: A British evolutionist who critically evaluated the neo-Darwinian theory, arguing that it only demonstrated the possibility of offspring, rather than providing a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary change.
G.R. Taylor: A biologist who emphasized the widespread dissatisfaction among scientists with the neo-Darwinian theory, leading to the Wistar Institute symposium.
Legacy and Impact
The Wistar Institute symposium marked a turning point in the development of evolutionary theory, as it highlighted the need for a more mathematically grounded approach. This led to increased efforts to integrate mathematical modeling and statistical analysis into evolutionary biology, ultimately enriching our understanding of evolutionary processes and outcomes.
another formulation by the search.brave.com AI
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“he’s written a couple of interesting books on the subject.
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem
I think you can tell by the titles the tenor and approach of these two books.”
How much of those 2 books have you read?
Do you recommend that others read them?
“Pigliucci does have an ongoing social media presence”
I didn’t notice an account of his on twitter.
He doesn’t seem to mention a YouTube channel of his.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“National Center for Science Education”
“There’s a lot of problems that scientists have that we haven’t yet explained.
But not yet having explained something doesn’t make something unexplainable.
And that’s the mistake that… the intelligent design folks make.”
Have any scientists explained how spontaneous generation can occur?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)