Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Sorry, I confused you. Minsky's theorem only tells us that us that traits that lead to higher reproduction rates will tend to increase in proportion. It has nothing to do with any continuous increase in "complexity," however we might define that.

That may be my fault. I may have been mistaken in thinking that the program you mentioned reflected the theorem you quoted, and conflated the two.

Linda

That may be my fault. I may have been mistaken in thinking that the program you mentioned reflected the theorem you quoted, and conflated the two.

Linda

No, it was my fault. After presenting Minsky, I said:

"I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?"

Minsky alone is not sufficient. I do think that evolution as a whole is sufficient to explain any existing level of complexity, although possibly not any arbitrary level of complexity. But I should go read the paper that nbtruthman posted.

Edited to add: A quick scan reveals no discussion of complexity. Anyhoo, I printed it and will read it once I've finished the two papers on Meltdown and Spectre.

~~ Paul

What's the appropriate term here? Condescending or patronising?

Neither, probably. My next words were about how even now, what our (current level of) knowledge tells us is natural still tests our intuitions. We shouldn't forget we are all "ignorant savages" (if that's what you were referring to with "condescending or patronizing").

Linda

Note that Fisher's theorem has always been debated:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/62d8/df...ee356f.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/17841330/An_ext..._selection

https://trashbird1240.wordpress.com/2011...selection/

And the latest paper:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...017-1190-x


~~ Paul

No, it's not just language. It's a failed analogy. Scaffolding is supposed to be used to build something. Erosion isn't building, it's wearing away. A hole in a rock is not meaningfully analogous to a biological function, let alone one so complex that it could only have emerged from a - meaningful - scaffolding process.

You point holds up because you've learnt from geologists that erosion is responsible for creating natural stone arches. Now suppose you no longer have that knowledge, how would that change your thinking.

I'm sad I could not persuade you see how a bunch of monkeys typing on a bunch of typewriters could with enough time produce a work of literature. For those critics of Evolutionary Theory to say there's not been enough time have no practical experience of how long time can be.

Neither, probably. My next words were about how even now, what our (current level of) knowledge tells us is natural still tests our intuitions. We shouldn't forget we are all "ignorant savages" (if that's what you were referring to with "condescending or patronizing").

Linda

Oh really, you will squirm your way out of anything. Why mention Native Americans and their myths and gods? You were deliberately comparing what you see as their superstitious nonsense with [presumably your] modern sophistication and lack of credulity (your word). It is the "oh, see, even I can have those moments" bit that counts as condescension. Up until then, it was just patronising.

Anyhow, have it your own way: you know what you were aiming for so own it. Hardly worth spending any more energy on.

Oh really, you will squirm your way out of anything.

I will patiently clarify my position when someone has misunderstood, if that's what you mean.

Why mention Native Americans and their myths and gods?

Because Malf suggested that we were unlikely to credit God with forming a natural arch (in the same way it gets credit for DNA, etc.). I recalled that there were Native American myths attached to some of the formations, on my visits to some of the national parks in the southwest (the Arches in particular), which would show otherwise.

You were deliberately comparing what you see as their superstitious nonsense with [presumably your] modern sophistication and lack of credulity (your word).

It was the other way around. "Credulity" was used in reference to accepting that flukey, surprising outcomes were produced by nature. That is, Malf and I would be the credulous ones, while those who are skeptical of whether nature can go so far as that, lack credulity.

I'm not sure why you regard Native American myths as superstitious nonsense.

It is the "oh, see, even I can have those moments" bit that counts as condescension. Up until then, it was just patronising.

"Even I"? Am I supposed to presume that I am superior in some way, so that if I mention something common in myself, I'm "condescending"? I'm flattered, I guess.

Anyhow, have it your own way: you know what you were aiming for so own it.

I do.

Hardly worth spending any more energy on.

Agreed.

Linda

I'm not sure why you regard Native American myths as superstitious nonsense.


Linda

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it really isn't worth my time but I can't let that deliberate misquote pass uncontested. I'd ask anyone else following this silly exchange in an otherwise enjoyable thread to go back and read what I actually said.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it really isn't worth my time but I can't let that deliberate misquote pass uncontested. I'd ask anyone else following this silly exchange in an otherwise enjoyable thread to go back and read what I actually said.

I'm sorry if you feel I misquoted you, but you're the only person who brought up the idea that Native American myths were superstitious nonsense. I realize you pretended this was something I said, but it occurred to you, not me.

Linda

Courtesy of the Daily Grail, here's an article at Aeon by Kevin Laland of the University of St Andrews, asking whether evolutionary science is due for a major overhaul:
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux-i...ary-theory