tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post647318819552923886..comments2023-10-31T10:57:37.652+00:00Comments on Epiphenom: Do people reject evolution because it unnerves them?Epiphenomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-45518914894203895932010-10-26T17:48:41.232+01:002010-10-26T17:48:41.232+01:00still thinking. I'm not religious and there is...still thinking. I'm not religious and there is some good level of certainty around my life. But I've read a lot of science material (I'm a fun) and evidence compared to chance is what I fancy. I think the theory of evolution only help advance scientific study and that's where it remains. It cannot explain to me why man has remained man and monkeys have remained monkeys. I didn't have to live in a perfect world to buy into anything. I love your attempt thoughNanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01413871396464391462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-44045774817829370932010-10-25T21:53:24.094+01:002010-10-25T21:53:24.094+01:00@ Tom
Yeah, still deciding if to keep two sites, t...@ Tom<br />Yeah, still deciding if to keep two sites, two pen names or what? Or maybe it would be simpler to titrate my psych meds. :-)<br />Thanks for the additional study info!Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-17121558787300327262010-10-25T21:46:37.579+01:002010-10-25T21:46:37.579+01:00Bjorn: well you say that, but maybe your view is m...<b>Bjorn:</b> well you say that, but maybe your view is marred by your atheist views :)<br /><br />Point is that there's always a range of ways to interpret the evidence. SCM has come up with an interpretation that fits the evidence but that doesn't put too much cognitive strain on his other beliefs. It's what we all do.Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-70246700496679279652010-10-25T21:42:22.705+01:002010-10-25T21:42:22.705+01:00Sabio: (or is it Josen now???) (1)The students wer...<b>Sabio:</b> (or is it Josen now???) (1)The students were undergrads, so 18-21. They were all aware of evolution, and most of them accepted it prior to the study.<br /><br />(2) They were actually split into three roughly equal groups, and each group had to choose between two alternative theories. So that mirrors what the graph shows.Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-29228350325614061442010-10-25T19:41:31.446+01:002010-10-25T19:41:31.446+01:00makes the controversial case that the development ...<i>makes the controversial case that the development of sentient life was more-or-less inevitable - in flat contradiction to Stephen Gould.</i><br /><br />I've heard the argument made -- and I wish I could cite who it was, I think just some random commenter at Pharyngula -- that, although this is nothing like hard evidence, based on the amount of time it took in our one case study for certain developments to arise, we can probably conclude that:<br /><br />1) Unicellular and simple multicellular life is probably not too awfully uncommon on reasonably hospitable planets.<br />2) Complex lifeforms (a la the Cambrian explosion) are probably fairly rare<br />3) Once you have complex lifeforms, sapience is probably fairly inevitable and occurs rather rapidly<br />4) Once you have sapience, technology blossoms in the blink of an eye<br /><br />Of course, like I say, this is just guessing from one single isolated case study. It could be just random coincidence that the timescales lined up in such a way. But it seems a reasonable guess.<br /><br />Note that I am <i>not</i> advancing an idea of there being a "continuum" of evolution converging on a particular idealized endpoint or any such nonsense. I'm just saying that it seems reasonable, given the relative time scales, it does not seem to much of a stretch to imagine that sapience is a niche that tends to get filled rather rapidly once you have the groundwork in place.James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-38310031610919765332010-10-25T19:37:57.628+01:002010-10-25T19:37:57.628+01:00SCM's view of evolution is marred by his relig...SCM's view of evolution is marred by his religious views. Honestly, nothing he says about evolution means much because of this problem.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-88227087279449178082010-10-25T13:13:08.406+01:002010-10-25T13:13:08.406+01:00(1) Curious: how old were the students? I would t...(1) Curious: how old were the students? I would think they would opinions about this issue before the experiment if there were older, and if they were too young, I can't imagine them reading a summary of the theories that explains them well enough for an informed choice during this short experiment.<br /><br />(2) If that graphing method common? I expected a spot for each theory with those two options -- my eye would compare.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-31955764870689775912010-10-25T02:32:19.998+01:002010-10-25T02:32:19.998+01:00SCW also rejects the use of phylogenetic reasoning...SCW also rejects the use of phylogenetic reasoning because he thinks convergence is the more significant, and in fact holds (based on several talks he gave last year in Notre Dame) that no matter what the evolutionary process, humans would evolve. I take him to be an exemplary case of someone who finds evolution of the ordinary theoretical kind to be unsettling for religious reasons.John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.com