A new book on evolution…....

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
07 November 2008 10:14
 

is due out in January, by biologist Jerry Coyne. Sounds like Coyne is trying to put the final nail in the coffin of intelligent designers andd creationists. Link

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Why-Evolution-Is-True/Jerry-Coyne/e/9780670020539/?itm=1

 
 
isocratic infidel
 
Avatar
 
 
isocratic infidel
Total Posts:  1054
Joined  08-10-2007
 
 
 
07 November 2008 12:25
 

There’s another final nail?
A miracle will also need to occur with this “final nail”: creationists and IDers comprehension and acknowledgment.

Maybe the biologists have been trying to put this final nail in the wrong place. confused

 
 
Beam
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1619
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
07 November 2008 12:28
 

I hope I never experience the final nail. Hey, with Viagra, I’ll be able to keep hammering away long after I lose any glimmer of attractiveness.

 
 
isocratic infidel
 
Avatar
 
 
isocratic infidel
Total Posts:  1054
Joined  08-10-2007
 
 
 
07 November 2008 12:46
 
Beam_Me_Up - 07 November 2008 05:28 PM

I hope I never experience the final nail. Hey, with Viagra, I’ll be able to keep hammering away long after I lose any glimmer of attractiveness.

All should be well, so long as you don’t pull a Gary Glimmer.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
07 November 2008 13:06
 

Here is what I meant by final nail. From the review-

‘Why evolution is more than just a theory: it is a fact

In all the current highly publicized debates about creationism and its descendant “intelligent design,” there is an element of the controversy that is rarely mentioned—the evidence, the empirical truth of evolution by natural selection. Even Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, while extolling the beauty of evolution and examining case studies, have not focused on the evidence itself.’

This book apparently is more about the ‘evidence’ and not so much the theory.

 
 
Beam
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1619
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
07 November 2008 13:32
 

I apologize, McC. I understood you. I was just trying to talk dirty to Iso. If you can ignore the politically correct “nonoverlapping magisteria” business, Gould was a wonderful lecturer. IMO, he was a better historian than scientist.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
07 November 2008 14:11
 

Gould was a brilliant writer also, which is what frustrated other theorists such as Dawkins, Dennett and Maynard Smith. However, sometimes Gould’s ideas of evolution were somewhat convoluted and confusing. It’s like he was always trying to be a paradigm shifter… ya know.

However, in the end, Gould did for evolutionary science writing the same thing that Carl Sagan did for Astronomy/cosmology. They handed it to the public and released it from academic circles only. Without people like them, millions would still be clueless.

 
 
isocratic infidel
 
Avatar
 
 
isocratic infidel
Total Posts:  1054
Joined  08-10-2007
 
 
 
07 November 2008 18:21
 

Hey McCreason,
Perhaps I should clarify what I meant in my initial, rather flippant post.
First, I had no intention of denigrating or discounting the import of Coyne’s book coming out in January. When I rhetorically asked, “There’s another final nail?” I meant to show my incredulousness that another nail is even necessary. That virtual coffin is loaded with nails. You, as an avid reader of ScienceDaily.com, as am I, the evidence that evolution is fact not theory is glaringly apparent.

My second remark was directed at the religionists, whom, even with the evidence right before their vary eyes, will still choose not to comprehend nor acknowledge it as fact. Hence, the remark about a miracle being needed.

The final remark about biologists putting the nail in the wrong place was meant to imply that maybe they need to put that nail in the religionist’s heads. (OUCH. Poor taste I know… but what can I say… I attempted to censor myself and look what happened. Next time perhaps I should be more blunt, so the Beamer there won’t interpret it as a veiled sexual innuendo.)—(No harm, no foul Beam… you know I loves ya like a brother!)

While I have your attention, perhaps I should explain why I’m not a fan of Lewontin… like Gould, who, as the solar Beam suggests, is more of an historian, I find that Lewontin has a tendency to let his political views taint his scientific findings. And like Gould, both men are guilty of trying to be paradigm shifters in order to make a name for themselves.

Peace, Love and neutralized rockets,
ii.

 
 
Beam
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1619
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
08 November 2008 02:06
 

McCreason and ii, I agree with you both. I must confess that I really enjoyed reading and listening to S J Gould. I accepted him for what he was. McC is right. Gould popularized evolution and that is a good thing. Gould and Sagan were friends who often traveled together. I would have loved to be listening in on some of their conversations. Science could benefit from a new generation of popular science writers like Sagan and Gould.
I apologize for the innuendo, ‘sis.’

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
08 November 2008 07:58
 

Thanks for being overly gracious guys but….it’s all good. we are all on the same page and team.

Rest assurred you can be as flippant and arrogant and obnoxious as you so choose to be. Far be it from me to wear a thin skin.

But….Goddamn it when I have something say you better fukin’ listen up!!!! ROTFL cool grin