The 12 Days of Evolution is a very nice introduction to evolutionary principles. This is one video, broken down into 12 succinct lessons. One quibble I have with this is that when he talks about purpose, he should point out that it’s not the job of science to find purpose in the natural world!
Thank you for posting this video. While it has some good points, it also has some problems. For instance it calls evolution “dumb,” which it is not. It does give one example of inefficient design, but other examples are questionable. I expect that this point is part of evolution’s attack on “intelligent design” which is false. The design of life is far from dumb or stupid and people who try to perpetuate this lie are not too bright themselves.
The best part of the video was the beginning where they give a real life example of evolutionary change. They show how some Hawaiian crickets resisted the attack of some bugs by losing their chirp. This is an clear example of ecological evolution, which was reinforced by the fact that crickets on another island attacked by the same bugs also resisted them by losing their chirp, but by a different genetic mechanism. Two groups of crickets in a similar challenging situation, solve it the same way but by different genetic means.
So after using an example of ecological evolution, and citing the example of clear ecological evolution of sickle blood cells as a protection against malaria, one would think that the video would give us a clear understanding of ecological evolution, right? Wrong. Ecological thinking was absent in the rest of the presentation.
Evolution creates lots of houses, but inexplicably not all thrive and flourish. Human beings should not be considered the highest products of evolution. Evolution has no purpose. These are all old mantras from the Darwinian view which are no longer valid under ecological evolution. You need to tell scientists that they need to stop being human and trying to answer human questions, esp. with wrong answers.
Roger, thank you for watching the video. I already pointed out when I first posted this video that “one quibble I have with this is that when he talks about purpose, he should point out that it’s not the job of science to find purpose in the natural world!”
btw, why would I tell scientists to stop being human?
The only way I am going to understand your objections is if you provide us with the SHORTEST POSSIBLE SENTENCE (or paragraph) that would have eliminated your objection if it had been ADDED to the presentation.
Once I read that … then I’ll be able to join your advocacy.
Roger, you have absolutely no grounds for refusing to explain what you think was MISSING from the presentation.
This is your big moment … where you can slam-dunk your position … and make it clear to the rest of us how the usual discussion of Evolutionary science is remiss.
And your answer? “Thanks, but no thanks.”
It’s very difficult to take your objections seriously when you refuse to fully explain your objections.
I guess I’ll stop worrying about your objections.
@beaglelady, would you agree that there’s not much for any of us to do without further explanation from Roger?
Have you read Thomas S. Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
Margulis has brought a scientific revolution to biology and I am extending it to evolution through ecological natural selection.
Wonderful, Roger! So, for us to grasp HOW you are extending/applying it, all you have to do is provide the sentence or paragraph that would render the presentation ECOLOGICALLY adequate. Even if I had read Kuhn’s book – it is only your example that can explicate your objections.
What part of NO don’t I understand?
The Part of NO that you seem to think everyone will ignore … just to make you happy.
If you will not explain your objections, your objections are without value.
Perhaps you think I’m setting some kind of trap for you. I have no intention of making a trap. I had HOPED that I would come to understand your unfathomable position.
I have explained my problems with that presentation of evolution and with other presentations of neoDarwinism many times and in many contexts. The problem seems to be that you don’t understand, nor do you seem to be making a effort to understand what I am trying to say. You continue to insist that my presentation conform to your way of simplistic thinking, which is misguided.
Roger, if your exceptionally nuanced position is so clear … please tell me who on these boards “agrees with your objections”.
Then I’ll ask my questions from THAT person - - since you are so very exhausted from all your objections.
Thanks… it will help both of us, I assure you!
OK folks, we’re descending into nit-picking and name-calling here. Maybe just call it quits and move to a different topic?
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.