“What is the complaint. That the blog is mine is transparent.
I think that the 'self-published' book seems to do a lot better than the establishment sanctioned book, so spare me the 'in crowd' snobbery.
Theories of evolution are in crisis: it requires outsiders to deal with the situation”
royniles on Aug 19, 2009 at 18:27:05
“No complaint. Just giving others who may not go to the sites notice that you have made authoritative claims and references which may have escaped an awareness that you have basically been acting as your own authority.”
Also the comments on Turchin 'macrohistory' theories are dubious mechanizations of historical dynamism: a look at the eonic effect (http://history-and-evolution.com) might show how the question of historical dynamics (and warfare) is tricky and refuses to yield to scientific reductionism and/or Darwinism”
royniles on Aug 18, 2009 at 15:55:52
“John, full disclosure would require acknowledging that you have invented the "eonic effect" concept, self-published the book and operate the referenced blog.
Dr. Wilson has earned his place at the podium here. Making statements of fact backed up by your own assertions elsewhere that they are factual is perhaps not the way to earn your own place at the same podium”
“Coyne's book is only the latest in the endless efforts in this vein, and they never succeed. Why? We all know that 'evolution is true', but we don't know that the theory of Darwin, natural selection, is correct. To pretend as brazenly as does Coyne otherwise isn't science, and isn't helpful to the public.
The creationists and ID debaters tempt these authors to make claims for Darwinism that are simply not the case, thus driving the debate still further.
For commentary on this book see:
Dec 7, 2008 at 17:11:23
“I fail to see the point of this line of argument. The origin of life is a problem for science, and certainly for Darwinism. Creationism is not the answer. But that doesn't make life any easier for Darwinism. Let's face it, the natural selection argument is inadequate, not only for life, but for the evolution of life after the origin. Shouting at creationists won't change this.
Commentary at Darwiniana: http://darwiniana.com/2008/12/07/if-you-call-creationists-stupid-dont-be-stupid/”
HeevenSteven on Dec 7, 2008 at 18:03:20
“"I fail to see the point of this line of argument. "
“The polarization of evolutionary theory, Darwinism, along left/right lines here is confusing and counterproductive: the real issue is the hidden and incestuous match of classical liberalism and Darwin's theory of natural selection. Trying to bail out basic Darwinism for post free-market ideology is a pointless exercise, Darwinism as such needs to be thrown out. The public needs to call the bluff on this attempted bailout of the maddeningly persistent Darwinism which left/liberals can't see through or bring themselves to drop. Darwinism was always a peculiar clone of classical liberalism and invisible hand theories. Trying to make it safe for Huffington post liberals is an exercise in deceptive mental gymnastics.
Neo-Darwinism is dead. We should note that Pigliucci recently attended the Altenberg conference on evolution where a whole slew of post-darwinist theories came into the open. It's over guys, OK? It would be nice if the liberal/left could get past the Darwin propaganda machine.
The clever fix of evolutionary theory in the work of group/kin selectionists, reflected in Wilson's work, doesn't on any account resolve the complexities of evolutionary ethics.
For a postdarwinian perspective see http://eonic-effect.net
and some commentary at Darwiniana blog
Applying Darwinian theory to social situations is always at risk: the theory is not sound on its own terms, let alone the analysis of human societies, what to say of economic micro situations.
Darwinism, significantly, can't distinguish, it seems, bee hives and human societies. They really aren't the same thing. The ideas of Darwin don't work in such diverse contexts.
We need not only a new economic perspective, but a postdarwinian view of evolution.”
royniles on Sep 22, 2008 at 13:47:28
“Opinions based on whose authority, John Landon's? Wilson may be stretching the analogy, but that's not the fault of Darwinism.”