L
Larry Moran
Guest
[moderator's note: I frown on meta-discussions, but I
suppose this is a useful perspective. Besides, Larry owns
the computers from which this ng is moderated,
sooooo.....take it away, Larry! - JAH]
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:20:48 +0000 (UTC), John Edser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Moran wrote:
>> If what you say is true then population geneticists and
>> evolutionary biologists must be really, really, stupid to
>> believe in random genetic drift. Is that what you think?
>
>> When your conclusion is completely at odds with the
>> scientific consensus, there are three main possibilities:
>>
>> (1) you're on to something new and original that nobody
>> has ever thought of
>> (2) you've made a mistake or don't know enough about
>> the subject
>> (3) you're a kook.
>>
>> Which category do you see yourself in?
>
> Lets be absolutely self consistent... Which category do
> you see _yourself_ in?
I put myself in category 2 whenever I find myself
disagreeing with all the experts in a field. On a few rare
occasions I've had illusions about being in category 1 but
these illusions were quickly dispelled. I worry about being
labelled a kook (category 3).
> There is no need to act in such a blatantly arrogant way.
> This list is not just about specialists using their own
> jargon to talk among themselves it is mostly about
> specialists informing the general public, who quite
> rightly have many VALID questions to ask.
For the most part, the experts on sci.bio.evolution have
done a good job of answering valid questions from non-
experts. The main problem is that several of the non-experts
just don't listen. For example, the experts have a good
working definition of evolution at the population level.
This is the definition they use in their debates and
discussions about evolutionary theory. I know of at least
one non-expert (you) who insists on using his own
idiosyncratic definition of evolution. I know of another non-
expert on sci.bio.evolution who refuses to listen when the
experts explain the fundamentals of basic chemistry. This
isn't the fault of the experts.
> All you need to do is carefully and SIMPLY explain your
> position. Above all, explain how an independent observer
> can test your view for themselves. Your arrogance and
> failure to partake in a simple thought experiment that can
> challenge the accepted dogma that random sampling error,
> alone, can be validly assumed to cause evolution and not
> just temporal variation, puts into question your
> integrity.
My position is that any change in the frequency of alleles
within a population is an example of evolution. According to
all the experts on population genetics such changes can
occur by natural selection or by random genetic drift. I've
looked at their models (= thought experiments) in the
textbooks and in the scientific literature. I find them very
convincing. Furthermore, I've looked at the actual evidence
of evolution by random genetic drift and found it
convincing. This evidence consists of real testable
experiments. There's also indirect evidence of the results
of evolution in modern species. These results can only be
reasonably explained by a stochastic process such as random
genetic drift of neutral alleles.
One of the characteristics of kooks is that they are
incredibly (even obsessively) self-centered. They see
themselves as beacons of light in a sea of darkness. In
other words, kooks see themselves in category 1 (above)
when, in fact, they are in category 3. You can often
recognize a kook because they accuse everyone else of
arrogance. They often use terms such as "accepted dogma" to
describe the point of view that they are challenging. The
term "dogma" is supposed to convey the idea that the experts
really don't have any evidence to support their position.
According to the kooks, these experts just blindly follow
each other because they're too stupid to think for
themselves. This "dogmatic" view is made out to be a form of
conspiracy that prevents the truth from being revealed. Of
course, only the kooks know about revealed truth.
One of the most obvious characteristics of newsgroup kooks
is that they post a huge number of messages taking on
everyone who questions the kook version of reality. If you
look closely, you'll see that the kooks rarely deal with
facts and evidence. Instead, they rely on "thought
experiments", strange definitions of terms, and obscure
theoretical and metaphysical arguments.
Many kooks also have an obsession over some minor aspect of
whatever it is they are attacking. Examples on this
newsgroup include hydrogen bonds and Hamilton's equation.
Some kooks have eccentric posting habits that don't conform
to standard newsgroup etiquette. I assume this is related to
their arrogance and their personal view of themselves as
very special individuals who don't need to conform.
Larry Moran
suppose this is a useful perspective. Besides, Larry owns
the computers from which this ng is moderated,
sooooo.....take it away, Larry! - JAH]
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:20:48 +0000 (UTC), John Edser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Moran wrote:
>> If what you say is true then population geneticists and
>> evolutionary biologists must be really, really, stupid to
>> believe in random genetic drift. Is that what you think?
>
>> When your conclusion is completely at odds with the
>> scientific consensus, there are three main possibilities:
>>
>> (1) you're on to something new and original that nobody
>> has ever thought of
>> (2) you've made a mistake or don't know enough about
>> the subject
>> (3) you're a kook.
>>
>> Which category do you see yourself in?
>
> Lets be absolutely self consistent... Which category do
> you see _yourself_ in?
I put myself in category 2 whenever I find myself
disagreeing with all the experts in a field. On a few rare
occasions I've had illusions about being in category 1 but
these illusions were quickly dispelled. I worry about being
labelled a kook (category 3).
> There is no need to act in such a blatantly arrogant way.
> This list is not just about specialists using their own
> jargon to talk among themselves it is mostly about
> specialists informing the general public, who quite
> rightly have many VALID questions to ask.
For the most part, the experts on sci.bio.evolution have
done a good job of answering valid questions from non-
experts. The main problem is that several of the non-experts
just don't listen. For example, the experts have a good
working definition of evolution at the population level.
This is the definition they use in their debates and
discussions about evolutionary theory. I know of at least
one non-expert (you) who insists on using his own
idiosyncratic definition of evolution. I know of another non-
expert on sci.bio.evolution who refuses to listen when the
experts explain the fundamentals of basic chemistry. This
isn't the fault of the experts.
> All you need to do is carefully and SIMPLY explain your
> position. Above all, explain how an independent observer
> can test your view for themselves. Your arrogance and
> failure to partake in a simple thought experiment that can
> challenge the accepted dogma that random sampling error,
> alone, can be validly assumed to cause evolution and not
> just temporal variation, puts into question your
> integrity.
My position is that any change in the frequency of alleles
within a population is an example of evolution. According to
all the experts on population genetics such changes can
occur by natural selection or by random genetic drift. I've
looked at their models (= thought experiments) in the
textbooks and in the scientific literature. I find them very
convincing. Furthermore, I've looked at the actual evidence
of evolution by random genetic drift and found it
convincing. This evidence consists of real testable
experiments. There's also indirect evidence of the results
of evolution in modern species. These results can only be
reasonably explained by a stochastic process such as random
genetic drift of neutral alleles.
One of the characteristics of kooks is that they are
incredibly (even obsessively) self-centered. They see
themselves as beacons of light in a sea of darkness. In
other words, kooks see themselves in category 1 (above)
when, in fact, they are in category 3. You can often
recognize a kook because they accuse everyone else of
arrogance. They often use terms such as "accepted dogma" to
describe the point of view that they are challenging. The
term "dogma" is supposed to convey the idea that the experts
really don't have any evidence to support their position.
According to the kooks, these experts just blindly follow
each other because they're too stupid to think for
themselves. This "dogmatic" view is made out to be a form of
conspiracy that prevents the truth from being revealed. Of
course, only the kooks know about revealed truth.
One of the most obvious characteristics of newsgroup kooks
is that they post a huge number of messages taking on
everyone who questions the kook version of reality. If you
look closely, you'll see that the kooks rarely deal with
facts and evidence. Instead, they rely on "thought
experiments", strange definitions of terms, and obscure
theoretical and metaphysical arguments.
Many kooks also have an obsession over some minor aspect of
whatever it is they are attacking. Examples on this
newsgroup include hydrogen bonds and Hamilton's equation.
Some kooks have eccentric posting habits that don't conform
to standard newsgroup etiquette. I assume this is related to
their arrogance and their personal view of themselves as
very special individuals who don't need to conform.
Larry Moran