"He also pauses to blast U.S. President George W. Bush"

A book that's supposed to be about traveling to the "dawn of life" and he can't even set his sights beyond the events of a few days ago. Sounds like another timeless tale for the ages.

More evolutionary Just-So stories. From the article:

"Genes also play a leading role in "Dodo's Tale," in which Dawkins recounts how pigeons that alighted on the predator-free island of Mauritius eventually evolved into heavy, flightless birds. Later, when humans arrived, the doomed dodo was a sitting duck. ... Dawkins says H. floresiensis fits perfectly the evolutionary trend toward island dwarfism. He refers to the examples of pygmy elephants once found on Sicily in the Mediterranean, and an extinct pygmy elephant which lived on Flores itself. The theory is that if there are no large predators around and a limited food supply, there is no advantage to having a bigger body, so species evolve into smaller versions of themselves."

So there is an evolutionary trend toward dwarfism, except when there isn't ... just-so.

The best explanation for Dawkins is that he is an extreme Christian fundamentalist on a secret mission to completely discredit supporters of evolution. His rantings don't make any sense otherwise.

Why are whales big?

Dawkins is more court jester than high priest.

The faith got the high priests it deserved.

brian:

Personally, I think he's a reincarnation of T.H. Huxley.

He's got the whole fanatical frothing hatred of Christianity down even better the second time.

Sod it, I'm going to defend Dawkins: partly because I suspect I'm one of the few people here who has actually read his stuff (and read it impartially, since I came to Dawkins years ago, when I knew nothing about darwinism) and I know how much he is misinterpreted.... and partly just because I like to stir things up.

Dawkins is unlike most evolution writers/biologists because he is hardline on religion. He thinks it's a positive evil, and he never misses an opportunity to deliver a good soundbite or appear as a 'talking head.'

Most evolution writers are indifferent to religion. They think it's pretty much irrelevant.

I'm in the latter category, and I agree that Dawkins can get a little tedious when it comes to bashing the Bible-bashers.

However, if you read him you'll realise that the vast bulk of his writing is explaining in layman's terms biological concepts which are not necessarily the easiest to grasp. He always flags his metaphors and his personal views with big scare quotes and disclaimers. Of course, this doesn't stop his enemies from gleefully seizing upon all of his writings in an unseemly haste to quote out of context.

In the specific area of exposition however, he is the most brilliant and interesting populariser of the theory of evolution around.

Mayr is far better for the beginner or the sceptic. He's clear, and sticks strictly to the facts. But Dawkins knocks him into a cocked hat when it comes to a good read.

Brit:

I'm with Brit. Mayr engages the issues seriously and therefore acknowledges that he's just espousing a philosophy. Dawkins is a true believer and therefore hilarious, in the way that reading about some ancient cult that propitiated sun gods by eating cow gonads, is. No one can read The Selfish Gene and not be immensely entertained in a Dianetics kind of way.

Mayr believes the theory of evolution is true just as much as Dawkins does.

The difference is that while Dawkins sees Creationism and ID as genuine enemies and thus dignifies them by addressing them, Mayr (and 99% of evolutionary biologists) doesn't take them remotely seriously. He doesn't think them worth discussing.

Which must be infuriating for Creationists and ID propenents.

Which is why they're so grateful for Dawkins, and why most biologists are so bemused by him.

Brit:

Mayr addresses them beautifully when he proffers Darwinism as nothing more than a rival faith. everyone should read him--he's just less amusing than Dawkins.

"Asked to nominate a favorite adaptation, Dawkins said, "Oh goodness, there are so many good candidates. It is a shame to pick one, but if you insist, I might choose the African horsefly larva..."

Hey, that's my favourite too.

Peter:

I'm a lice man, myself.

Is it any wonder that Gould labeled Dawkins an atheistic version of a fundy?

the flies evolved into flies and the lice into lice.

OJ:

If "everyone" did read Mayr, I can confidently state that approximately none of them would come to the same conclusions about him that you do (that he thinks the theory of evolution is not a science but a faith no more valid than Creationism).

Your entire shtick on Mayr is based on but one selective quotation, onto which you put your eccentric little spin.

Brit:

Which differs from you how?

I reserve my eccentric spin for bowling cricket balls.

You pick and choose the bits of Mayr you like and deny his overarching theme, as you must to justify your faith. It's the evolutionary version of a googly.

I don't remember using any Mayr quotations.

I remember recommending 'What Evolution Is' as an introduction to the theory of evolition.

OJ:

If "everyone" did read Mayr, I can confidently state that approximately none of them would come to the same conclusions about him that you do (that he thinks the theory of evolution is not a science but a faith no more valid than Creationism).

Your entire shtick on Mayr is based on but one selective quotation, onto which you put your eccentric little spin.
Posted by Brit at November 18, 2004 10:02 AM

Yeah, that's not actually a Mayr quotation.

Brit:

In a thread from last week contrasting how the Theory of Evolution (ToE) attains the requirements to be considered science with how Creationism/ID (C/ID) does not, OJ proved he does not understand deductive logic, consequence or circular logic.

Add to that quote mining (how much of Mayr's book did he actually read?), specious attribution, and an astonishingly flexible attitude towards word meaning.

OJ's theological applecart is all about him, and has nothing to do with accepting Nature at face value.

The result is reasoning so tendentious that I have never seen its like.

Oh well. Whatever it takes to avoid the slightest disturbance to that applecart.

Jeff:

Oh I think he understands circular logic all right. He's an expert.

I admire your heroic battling on those threads.

But I think the key rules when you get into a lengthy exchange with OJ are:

1) Don't take it too seriously
2) Accept that sarky one-liners are as good as thought-out arguments
3) Accept that OJ will always, always have The Last Word.

oj-

Why do darwinists need to saddle you with a particular definition of "creationism" and "ID" when all you seem to be doing is questioning their scientific dogma? Darwin's theories may be true and maybe not but atheists need to believe regardles of the ambiguious evidence. Doctrinaire evolutionists are unable to differentiate between that which they know and that which they need to believe. The idea of scientific reasoning, uninfluenced by philosphical assumptions which need to be justified, even at the expense truth, was severely damaged during the 19th century's detour into materialistic sophistry. It all could have been avoided if Marx, Darwin, Freud and their admirers had simply demanded Proof for their theories which was untouced by their a priori beliefs.

Tom:

They believe so wholly and unreservedly that the only reason they can imagine anyone doubting is for blind religious reasons. Meanwhile, no one I know with a skeptical bone in their body buys it. It fails the test of Reason before it ever gets to the test of Faith.

Tom C. --

Dittos, I think.

Jeff:

Consequences don't precede, they follow. Of course Darwiniswm jibes with everything that was known previously, the problem is that it conflicts with everything since. That it only attempts to explain what was already true gives it its unfalsifiability.
Posted by oj at November 18, 2004 01:07 PM

Brit:

No. it's your takeaway. You can't quote him for the view you hold.

I have no idea who Dawkins thinks he writes for, but his contribution to the Guardian's Clark County letter writing campaign shows that he doesn't have a clue about how Americans think. If, as Brit says, he views religious believers as "enemies" then he is fighting a battle that he has no hope of winning. The number of people who, when faced with a religion vs evolution choice, are going to ditch their religion is vanishingly small. Certainly much smaller than the number who will become much less inclined to view positively anything that scientists, biological or otherwise, pontificate on. I suspect that in fact, like Brit, Dawkins merely likes to stir the pot and is laughing all the way to the bank. But I maintain that he hurts his own cause in his attempts to satisfy his ego.

Tom:

I don't saddle OJ with C/ID, because I don't think he gives them any particular credence. But C/ID is what it is--I'm only conveying what I have read in trying to figure out what it is they are all about.

OJ:
The term Darwinism being the sure sign of a theological axe-grinder; one might as well say Newtonianism instead of Physics.

The actual term I have used is deductive consequence. That is, as consequences of the theory, certain things must obtain. That is no different than saying that in order for A to be true, so must B, C, D and F. There is no order of precedence in time. I'm sorry if deductive logic is too hard for you.

Your assertion is dead wrong in any event.

Tom:
You caricature Evolution. In the parlance, despite OJ's obscurantism, Evolutionary theory is overdetermined. I can count roughly a dozen things completely unknown to Darwin that had to be true in order for his theory to stand a chance at being true. (age of the Earth, particulate Inheritance, single origin of life, common descent of all species, an extremely high correlation between Linneaus' classification and DNA, genetic divergence as a function of relatedness, to name a few)

Evolutionary theory says not a word about any of those things (okay, one, common descent of all species). But one can deduce that if the theory is true, then as a consequence, so must all of the things I mentioned.

Which, as it turns out, they are.

That does not make Evolution capital-T true. But it does make Evolution among the most overdetermined theories ever postulated.

That stands in stark contrast to C/ID--one can deduce nothing from them, they have no theoretical consequences.

Which doesn't make C/ID false, but it does make them not science.

Birds are not dinosaurs. But they were.

Most whales are not big.

I doubt whether Orrin knows anyone who actually has any idea what darwinism says.

I suspect Orrin has read most of Mayr, but he resolutely fails to engage what Mayr did say.

Why? One reason could be that he knows he's gonna lose that argument if he tries.

Anyhow, rather than recommending, again, that Orrin stop misrepresenting Mayr, I recommend than anyone who wishes to engage in controversy about darwinism read Mayr (or an equally respected source) and make up his own mind.

Like brit, I doubt anyone who has read Mayr will agree with Orrin's evaluation of what he said.

Harry:

Even his titles reveal that he thinks it nothing more than a system of thought, though biology itself is a science.

Jeff:

read the Edward Larson book on Darwin, which Harry cited, and you'll see that all of your "deductive consequences" were the basis for the theory not consequences of it.

JD Watson:

"So there is an evolutionary trend toward dwarfism, except when there isn't ... just-so."

Actually, that is just so.

Island dwarfism was a well-known evolutionary phenomenon long before the hobbits were discovered.

But island gigantism is even more common. Perhaps the most famous examples are the Galapagos giant tortoises studied by Charles Darwin himself.

Island populations are reproductively isolated and face unique selective pressures, so you get fairly dramatic divergence. What that divergence is will depend on the circumstances. It won't always be dwarfism, and it won't always be gigantism.

OJ:

"deductive consequences" were the basis for the theory not consequences of it.

So? That is precisely my point. A successful theory has to take into account all the known deductive consequences. Further, to continue to be successful, it has to also be consistent with any future such consequences.

DNA wasn't discovered until the mid-1950s, so the Evolutionary theory of a century earlier could scarcely have any DNA related deductive consequences. There are probably at least a dozen DNA-related deductive consequences that must be consistent with Evolutionary theory in order for the theory to survive.

They all are.

In contrast, C/ID has not one of any kind.

Brit:

Your comment provides another example of deductive consequence. Isolated populations always diverge, and the divergence is a function of time.

Jeff:

No, a theory that only tells us things we knew and makes no predictions nor offers any tests is not a science.

It was well known that species bred true, though the precise mechanism, perhaps DNA, was not yet understood.

There was nothing new that has been borne out.

Brit:

Yes, farmers taught Darwin that you can create divergence within a species via isolated breeding. What you can't get, as we've found since, is either speciation or any significant morphological change.

OJ:

"either speciation or any significant morphological change."

I thought that these were identical on your definition of 'speciation'.

On our definition of species (reproductive isolation), you can certainly get it.

That's why you need your morphological definition of species for your argument to stand.

But how would you define 'significant', if gigantism is not 'significant' enough for you?

How about the change from four legged land mammal to a humpback whale. Is that significant?

Brit:

Yes, Darwinists changed the definition to just reproduction issues when no other speciation could be identified, but even such a definition fails, as witness the interbreeding of Darwin's finches. Gigantism is meaningless--we've made dogs big and little but they're still just dogs.

Proof that whales once walked would demonstrate that they've evolved, not that Natural Selection had anything to do with it.

Oh dear. A conspiracy theory about the definition of species?

The definition of species has changed because our knowledge has grown considerably since the days when you pointed and said "that's a bird", "that's a bug", "that's fish-type thingy".

The problem with your morphological definition is that it is somewhat subjective.

Taxonomy is notoriously subjective.

No, a theory that only tells us things we knew and makes no predictions nor offers any tests is not a science.

Oh, come now.

Species "breeding true" (a classic case of taking as true what is yet to be proven) has absolutely nothing to do with the degree of DNA correlation among different species, genera, families and kingdoms.

Within C/ID, that DNA correlation could be high, medium, low, or non-existent.

For Evolutionary theory to be true, that correlation must be a function of relatedness.

Witin C/ID, there is absolutely no requirement that isolated populations diverge over time. Could happen every time, sometimes, or never.

For Evolutionary theory to be true, isolated populations must diverge over time, with that divergence being proportional to time.

There are two cases where Evolution could have been disproven by obervation, but instead was affirmed.

C/ID is completely silent on both significant elements of Natural History.

What I find funny is your inability to spot the irony. Since C/ID has no associated consequences, it is useless to prove the point it desperately wishes to establish. On the other hand, the ToE, because is has such consequences is where C/IDers need to focus their research if they truly believe their hypothesis bears any resemblance to objective truth.

Jeff:

All that can be shown is that there are no consequences of Darwinism, but you can't prove a negative.

Classical taxonomy was notoriously subjective, which was why taxonomists were circumspect in their claims.

Genetic marking reduces the subjectivity markedly.

A famous example is the argument about whether pandas were more closely related to bears or raccoons.

It was an open question, as long as morphology and other gross evidence was all that was available.

Since real darwinism, as opposed to the platonic pseudo-darwinism that you spend so much time debunking, is based on life as it is, before you can say anything, you have to examine the life you've got.

It's made up:

http://www.largocanyon.org/science/taxon.htm

She did not say it was made up. She said it was incomplete.

Yeah, it changes every time someone needs it to, so it's never complete.