The Third Evo Synthesis
| Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 > | Entries: 69 |
01.07.2009 21:46, Wolfgang Roosch from Göteborg, Sweden  : |
| Thanks Gert, for digging up this very fitting qoute from Darwin himself. He throws the ball right back into the court of semantics, an area I am (slightly) more familiar with than the natural sciences. He sees right through the issue, but I really have to think for a while on his statement that "with a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten". It seems a bit like he is sensing a troublesome inadequacy and trying to disarm it by labelling it superficial. Entirely understandable, but it doesn't mean that future generations of scientists have to adhere to the original terminology. It does happen that along with scientific progress the terminology is updated or changed. |
| 01.07.2009 13:11, Wolfgang Roosch from Göteborg, Sweden : |
| Thanks Gert, for digging up this very fitting qoute from Darwin himself. He throws the ball right back into the court of semantics, an area I am (slightly) more familiar with than the natural sciences. He sees right through the issue, but I really have to think for a while on his statement that "with a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten". It seems a bit like he is sensing a troublesome inadequacy and trying to disarm it by labelling it superficial. Entirely understandable, but it doesn't mean that future generations of scientists have to adhere to the original terminology. It does happen that along with scientific progress the terminology is updated or changed. |
29.06.2009 16:45, gert korthof  : |
| Hello Wolfgang, You are right that these concepts can be misunderstood. Darwin knew that. This is what Darwin wrote: "Other have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? - and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the motions of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, The Modern Library, 1998, p109) If you would have a look at evolution textbooks (fe Glossary) you will find technical definitions of concepts 'natural selection', 'fitness', 'adaptation'. So that is the solution: make a technical definition, write it in the textbooks and teach it to the students. Furthermore, the concept 'natural selection' is opposed to 'artificial selection', the two belong together. If you delete one, what to do with the other? Gert Korthof |
| 28.06.2009 23:06, Wolfgang Roosch from Göteborg, Sweden : |
| Hello Gert: It has been a while I visited your domain and followed the discussions. As an interested layman I have nevertheless been thoroughly bothered by the established terminology used within evolutionary science. The issue here is not the validity of the theory (and its variants), but merely the coined and used terminology. For example: the term ”selection” implies a conscious choice based on an equally conscious value judgement. Thus ”natural selection” is a grave misnomer for the observed phenomenon. This and other misnomers have been costly to evolutionary science: Careless liguistics continue to veil the true nature of the evolutionary engine for a great number of people. Social Darwinism builds largely on a literal understanding of misleading terms. I suspect also that a change in terminology will rather clarify and sharpen the clash with ”creationism” (which I personally would welcome!) Instead of ”natural selection” one should use a term that implies the unguidedness of the evolutionary process, e.g. ”natural persistance” or ”natural continuance”, maybe ”niche remainder”. None of these suggestions seem satisfactory, but they can maybe serve to point out the problem. At any rate, all terms that even just mildly suggest a value judgment like ”survival”, ”fit-unfit”, ”adaptation” etc. are counterproductive and misrepresent the observed phenomena. I am almost sure that even many practioners in the field would agree on that, while probably underestimating the consequences of the semantic problem at the same time. Do you know of any publications that address the topic of terminology from a strict ”evolutionist” angle? I’d be thankful for tips! Greetings from Zweden to Nederland Wolfgang Roosch |
| 27.06.2009 12:30, gert korthof : |
| Thanks Ben. The title has been added to the Introduction page of the website http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof.htm Gert Korthof |
| 26.06.2009 23:48, Ben Roberts : |
| You may wish to add Carl Zimmer's latest book to your site: The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. |
| 05.06.2009 14:43, gert korthof: |
| Vincent, Ik heb jouw kommentaar naar evolutie.blog.com gekopieerd omdat dat een nederlandstalig blog is. Gert |
| 05.06.2009 14:27, Vincent Kemme from Regio Brussel : |
| Dag Gert, Ik ken u alleen van uw blog, die mij zeer interesseert, maar die ik nog lang niet genoeg bestudeerd heb. Ik ben bioloog van de Univ. van Utrecht ('77-'85), heb onder Gerdien de Jong nog gestudeerd (kandidaatcursus populatie- en evolutiebiologie) en als eerstgraads docent biologie afgestudeerd. Tijdens mijn studie ben ik van een agnost van katholieke huize een gelovig en geëngageerd katholiek christen geworden, door een aantal gebeurtenissen. Daarna heb ik mij verdiept in de theologie en wat filosofie, om een synthedse te bereiken in mijn hoofd tussen mijn geloof en mijn biologische inzichten. Ik heb lesgegeven in een privé-school in Tilburg en aan de Europese Scholen te Brussel. Nu ben ik begonnen met een blog, biofides.eu, die ik hier heb vermeld. Mijn insteek is de confrontatie geloof en biowetenschappen. Ben onlangs in Rome naar het congres Biological Evolution geweest, georganiseerd door het Vaticaan, de pauselijke universiteit Gregoriana en de Notre Dame University, Indiana, USA. Nu verzorg ik met een Vlaamse vriend vijf radiouitzendingen over de evolutietheorie op Radio Maria, een nieuwe katholieke radiozender op de middengolf AM675: maandag 8 en 15 juni om 11 uur is het aan mij. De tekst kan je op de website radiomaria.nl downloaden (bij 'programmering'). Ben geïnteresseerd in je opmerkingen en eventueel nader contact. Met vriendelijke groet, Vincent Kemme. |
| 03.04.2009 12:33, gert korthof: |
| Dear Darshi , thank you for visiting my site. I cannot accept automatically books for review due to time restrictions. Reading and reviewing a book takes time. There is no staff at this site which can handle review requests. This site is run only by myself. Furthermore, I am no expert on a thousands subjects. Having said that, you made me curious about your book and about yourself. So, why not tell something about yourself and your book? Gert Korthof |
| 02.04.2009 11:53, Darshi Arachige : |
| PRIVATE: Dear Gert I am a frequent visitor to your site and I like your scholarly and impartial reviews. That said could I ask you how someone can submit a book of this genre for review? Do you accept self-published books at all? Kind Regards Darshi |
| Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 > | Entries: 69 |
 motigo.com |
Get free forums, guestbooks, shorturls and web statistics at motigo. |