https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2020-01.html
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:33 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Nick, the study I have seen did not involve human intervention with moth > eggs. Because the industrial revolution in England was contaminating the > moth environment with soot, including the tree bark upon which the moths > rested, they adapted color to soot-black. Years later, when minimal > environment concerns cleaned up factory emissions, the moths reverted to > original coloring. > > davew > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 3:53 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Glen, > > > > When I was a lad of 40, there was some evidence kicking around that > > melanism was a developmental adaptation to forest fire destruction. > > Somebody treated moth eggs with chemicals from burnt wood and for the > > next few generations, the resulting moths were black, only to switch > > back to white if stimulation of the eggs was continued. How that > > literature panned out, I don't know. > > > > N > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 10:44 AM > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Popper on Darwinism > > > > The creationists have been peddling this rhetoric for a very long time. > > It's important to read Popper's recant and clarification. From Popper's > > 1978 paper "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind": > > > > "However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of > > evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There > > are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such > > as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe > > natural selec- tion happening under our very eyes, as it were. > > Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection > > are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable > > theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural > > selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and > > even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A > > tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, test- able; > > nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to > > hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves > > formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology > > that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. > > And C. H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in > > other places) that "Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a > > tautology". 6 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an > > "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a > > tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. > > > > Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists > > as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and > > others. > > > > I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influ- > > enced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the > > theory as "almost tautological", 7 and I have tried to explain how the > > theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and > > yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of > > natural selection is a most suc- cessful metaphysical research > > programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us > > what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. > > > > I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research > > pro- gramme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability > > and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am > > glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, > > I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of > > natural selection. What is important is to realize the explanatory task > > of natural selection; and especially to realize what can be explained > > without the theory of natural selection." > > > > > > On 12/13/21 8:32 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > >> Dave, to clarify: > >> > >> What does Popper (or what do you) take to be the referent for the tag > “Darwinism”. The term has gone through so many hands with so many > purposes, that I am hesitant to engage with only the term, without a fuller > sense of what it stands for in the worldview of my interlocutor. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Eric > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 13, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm > <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote: > >>> > >>> “/Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical > >>> research program—a possible framework for testable scientific > theories./” > >>> Karl Popper. > >>> > >>> I like this distinction but immediately wonder if it might provide > some analytical / research means that could be applied to other > "metaphysical research programs" — creationism for example, or the plethora > of efforts, by scientists, to reconcile their faith with their science. Or, > Newton's [and Jung's] (in)famous commitment to Egyptian Alchemy. > >>> > >>> Would it be possible to use the Tao de Ching or the Diamond Sutra or > Whitehead's Process Philosophy (not a random selection, I group the three > intentionally) as a metaphysical research program and derive some > interesting and useful science? > >>> > >>> davew > > > > > > -- > > "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." > > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- > > - . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: > > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - > . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: > > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
