tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post116350727650800295..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Making Sense of Evolution (the book)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1164039483999106432006-11-20T11:18:00.000-05:002006-11-20T11:18:00.000-05:00bill:"The only thing about this is it purposely ig...bill:"The only thing about this is it purposely ignored the mechanisms of evolution in order to show evolutionary theory as independent of the exact mechanisms by which change occurs."<BR/><BR/>That has been my exact problem for quite some time. I think that ignoring "how scientific principles were developed from point a to point b" is not an honest methodology at all. <BR/><BR/>To me, evolution is a subset of a huge variety of more important issues. That is, either atomic theory or information theories are far more likely to reach the qualifications for a theory of "everything" than evolution could ever hope for. Started to think this after reading W. Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle" a long while ago. <BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163979788226317812006-11-19T18:43:00.000-05:002006-11-19T18:43:00.000-05:00John,I appreciate it, and will forward the link to...John,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate it, and will forward the link to Jonathan, including a pointer to the whink...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163976236939981552006-11-19T17:43:00.000-05:002006-11-19T17:43:00.000-05:00I just blogged this on Evolving Thoughts. Note the...I just <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/11/making_sense_of_evolution.php" REL="nofollow">blogged this</A> on Evolving Thoughts. Note the hint in the text...John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163956097718072242006-11-19T12:08:00.000-05:002006-11-19T12:08:00.000-05:00Kevin,I haven't read the Time magazine article. Th...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>I haven't read the Time magazine article. The problem is that I cringe whenever I hear attributes like "atheist" or "christian" to qualify the word scientist...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163953722423423962006-11-19T11:28:00.000-05:002006-11-19T11:28:00.000-05:00beepbeepChecked out your blog, and noted the entry...beepbeep<BR/>Checked out your blog, and noted the entry for Nov. 13, which contains transcript of part of a lecture by Ken Miller, also a You-tube clip of same. Must be the lecture that Kevin Eric Clark was referring to. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure that bill wouild find it as interesting interesting as I did.<BR/><BR/>As I said, beepbeep has the transcript and the clip both, but<BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M" REL="nofollow">here</A> is the clip by itself.<BR/><BR/>Notice what Miller says at the top about the Dover trial (ID response to genome evidence).<BR/><BR/>In fact that's lots of juicy things in that trial.suffenushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03511402915799863609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163943514551751422006-11-19T08:38:00.000-05:002006-11-19T08:38:00.000-05:00Wherever there is a gap in knowledge, there is som...Wherever there is a gap in knowledge, there is someone with a god concept lurking.beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163876861584395282006-11-18T14:07:00.000-05:002006-11-18T14:07:00.000-05:00Massimo Pigliucci: "You may want to try my 'Denyin...Massimo Pigliucci: "You may want to try my 'Denying Evolution' (Sinauer), it's about creationism but it includes several chapters on the basics of both evolutionary theory and science in general.<BR/><BR/>"There are others, of course, e.g. R. Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" and E. Mayr's "This is Biology.<BR/><BR/>"People, feel free to chime in here."<BR/><BR/>I've found <A HREF="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" REL="nofollow">"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"</A> to be a decent primer on evolution, especially for getting a feel for the breadth of support that evolution has.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163804152231247812006-11-17T17:55:00.000-05:002006-11-17T17:55:00.000-05:00Cal, in case you didn't know, evolution has nothin...Cal, in case you didn't know, evolution has nothing to say on the origin of life, which is the subject of abiogenesis. :rolleyes:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163693823182667502006-11-16T11:17:00.000-05:002006-11-16T11:17:00.000-05:00Timothy,I think the PBS evolution series was very ...Timothy,<BR/><BR/>I think the PBS evolution series was very good. As for molecular evolution, there are of course plenty of serious textbooks about it, but within the framework of the evolution-creation "debate" I'd check out Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (especially if you ignore the second part on quantum physics, which rapidly descends into nonsense...)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163692535477620212006-11-16T10:55:00.000-05:002006-11-16T10:55:00.000-05:00MP: "Cal, as I repeat to you _often_, pre-evolutio...MP: "Cal, as I repeat to you _often_, pre-evolution and pre-big bang stuff simply has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. Period."<BR/><BR/>Let me remind you, neither evolution or secularism has an origin or predominance inside of the reasons why we originally educated the masses in the first place. To me, it is much like the II law working inside of the constraints of knowledge and education. It's ran its course and now it's running down and becoming a degraded form of the original. <BR/><BR/>The true reason we have public edu at all was on account of Martin Luther who wished to teach children to read the Bible.<BR/><BR/>On the origins of the universe and physical principles therein, Scientific American suggests in "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" that there are no virtually no answers to the origins of the universe. However, aliens would be an acceptable consideration for all the things that we really don't understand and don't know the true origin of. <BR/><BR/>"7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. <BR/><BR/>The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young. <BR/><BR/>Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies." SA<BR/><BR/>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catID=2<BR/><BR/>What was your favorite and customary use for the word credulous, again? Don't you think people really have the right to dig a little deeper and expect more of themselves and the formation of theories? I sure do.<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163669815504654602006-11-16T04:36:00.000-05:002006-11-16T04:36:00.000-05:00Pigliucci,I just came across PBS' WGBH's (Boston P...Pigliucci,<BR/><BR/>I just came across PBS' WGBH's (Boston PBS station)Evolution project (2001). They have some good resources on teaching evolution and dealing with creationism. I have not seen the television series, but I have ordered it from the library. I was wondering what you thought of the project (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/). <BR/><BR/>What is the most detailed book or book series on the molecular evidence for common descent. What is the simplest known natural organism? <BR/><BR/>Thanks. I like your <A HREF="http://www.debatehaven.com/mp3/Tape106_Pigliucci_Hovind_debate_16kbps.mp3" REL="nofollow">Hovind debate</A> a lot and wish there would someday be a debate just on the molecular evidence between a hard core expert (geek) and Hovind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163607722196401222006-11-15T11:22:00.000-05:002006-11-15T11:22:00.000-05:00Cal, as I repeat to you _often_, pre-evolution and...Cal, as I repeat to you _often_, pre-evolution and pre-big bang stuff simply has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. Period.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163604845291600592006-11-15T10:34:00.000-05:002006-11-15T10:34:00.000-05:00MP: "What the book" ... "attempts to do is a criti...MP: "What the book" ... "attempts to do is a critical examination of the logic, consistency and applicability of some of the fundamental concepts used by evolutionary biologists. Some of these concepts include basic ones such as natural selection and biological species,"<BR/><BR/>As I claim OFTEN, one would have to include pre-evolution and pre-big bang considerations to honestly and comprehensively include "logic".<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163604470404983842006-11-15T10:27:00.000-05:002006-11-15T10:27:00.000-05:00As I said, if you need more than this, read the bo...As I said, if you need more than this, read the book...<BR/>-------<BR/><BR/>All biologists an of course the Evolutionary Theory need a lot of this!!!ICAROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11459228690588429317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163573594878938582006-11-15T01:53:00.000-05:002006-11-15T01:53:00.000-05:00IMO, Bill, Dawkins's "Climbing Mt. Improbable" is ...IMO, Bill, Dawkins's "Climbing Mt. Improbable" is the best for understanding evolution itself, and if you want specifically arguments against creationism or other pseudo-scientific claptrap (nto that I'm biased or anything...), there's this book called "Denying Evolution" by some bloke called Max Pigliucci. You might have heard of him...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163553550400998982006-11-14T20:19:00.000-05:002006-11-14T20:19:00.000-05:00How about What Evolution Is by Mayr?Or books by Ma...How about <I>What Evolution Is</I> by Mayr?<BR/><BR/>Or books by Matt Ridley, such as <I>The Agile Gene</I> or <I>Genome</I>.suffenushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03511402915799863609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163537820519776802006-11-14T15:57:00.000-05:002006-11-14T15:57:00.000-05:00Bill,no, Making Sense of Evolution wouldn't be goo...Bill,<BR/><BR/>no, Making Sense of Evolution wouldn't be good for that purpose, it's a rather technical book.<BR/><BR/>You may want to try my "Denying Evolution" (Sinauer), it's about creationism but it includes several chapters on the basics of both evolutionary theory and science in general.<BR/><BR/>There are others, of course, e.g. R. Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" and E. Mayr's "This is Biology."<BR/><BR/>People, feel free to chime in here.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com