several are available: https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2018-03.html https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2020-02.html https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1993-10.html https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1994-12.html
how many more do you need? On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/
