scigirl

Radorth states,
Heh this struck me as funny for some reason, and reminded me of those jealous boy (girl) friends who say, "if you can't have her, no one can."

I think he simply has "data envy."

scigirl

MrDarwin

Why do creationists so often fall silent when we start discussing details and asking specific questions?

Oolon Colluphid

Yeah, I was wondering about that. I note that our Rad is averaging over 7 posts a day, and has posted over 20 since his last reply in this thread. Do you think we should give him a prod -- maybe he’s just forgotten us (despite this being a thread he himself started... )?

DT

Edited to add: Maybe what I quoted above is the answer: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

Fair enough then Rad. Since it's a lot to hope for that you would say you concede, we'll just take it that you do.

Jan Haugland

Sorry, it is some time since I read it, and I have not been tempted to read it again. And "vague" is precisely what I think Gould was. He was a very entertaining author, perhaps even inspiring, but I always ended each essay thinking "what exactly does he mean, again?" I don't deny that Gould did a lot to popularise evolutionary science, but he also carelessly provided a lot of ammunition to the creationists, by mudduing the water unnecessary. Lots of what he said gave the impression that punctuated equilibrum was a real break with neo-darwinism.

And I simply don't agree that saltationism deserves a revival.


- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

pz

Gould generated a lot of responses like that. Part of the problem was that he preferred to engage the complexities of the field, rather than focusing on the simplifications other writers preferred.

The other part of the problem is that he became more and more prolix as he became more and more established. His magnum opus is a very rich book full of great ideas, spoiled by the excesses of his writing. He desperately needed an editor, and obstinately refused their services.
This was about Goldschmidt, and you are wrong. Most of the people I've talked to know little about Goldschmidt's actual ideas, and are instead going by the demeaning caricature of those ideas presented by people like Mayr (who is clearly without a clue when he discusses Goldschmidt).

I've known a fair number of developmental biologists who have gone back to look at what Goldschmidt actually did, and although there is some weird stuff in there, a lot of it was spot on. It's too bad the architects of the Synthesis were unappreciative, but unfortunately, at the time, one of the central messages of Goldschmidt's work was how much we didn't know. That's not a popular idea among revolutionaries.

Jan Haugland

Thank you for your comments, pz.

You are right, I too base my opinion about Goldschmidt on what has been written about him, by his admirers and critics alike. I am glad you could provide a balance, and hopefully I'll get time to look at his writings myself.

Ah, so much to read, so little time... (story of my life)


- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy