• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Darwin's Doubt

YankeeFan said:
deck Whitman said:
I honestly don't follow. The reason people don't grasp evolutionary biology isn't because they aren't smart. It's because they haven't made any kind of real study of it, formal or informal.

This is a true statement.

Do books like this make the topic interesting and approachable to the average person, or does it exploit them? Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.

No, books like this just fuel the legitimacy of this garbage and allow debates to continue about whether we should be teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. They really don't help anything, particularly because the author's premise is to construct a straw man (DARWIN SAID HE SOLVED EVERYTHING AND HE DIDN'T SO HA!!!) and then set flame to it.
 
YankeeFan said:
deck Whitman said:
I honestly don't follow. The reason people don't grasp evolutionary biology isn't because they aren't smart. It's because they haven't made any kind of real study of it, formal or informal.

This is a true statement.

Do books like this make the topic interesting and approachable to the average person, or does it exploit them? Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.

I think, in many ways, books like this - or ones teaching actual evolutionary biology to the masses instead of Jesus biology - are problematic because they are so accessible. Science is complex. But people get a diluted dose of it in sixth grade, then another breezy dose of it via Malcolm Gladwell 10-15 years later, and they get this impression that it's all really pat.
 
LongTimeListener said:
YankeeFan said:
deck Whitman said:
I honestly don't follow. The reason people don't grasp evolutionary biology isn't because they aren't smart. It's because they haven't made any kind of real study of it, formal or informal.

This is a true statement.

Do books like this make the topic interesting and approachable to the average person, or does it exploit them? Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.

No, books like this just fuel the legitimacy of this garbage and allow debates to continue about whether we should be teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. They really don't help anything, particularly because the author's premise is to construct a straw man (DARWIN SAID HE SOLVED EVERYTHING AND HE DIDN'T SO HA!!!) and then set flame to it.

I guess I'd have to read the book to fairly respond.

I found the discussion I heard yesterday to be interesting. (He was being interviewed by my main man, Michael Medved.)

I'm just not sure that he's doing what you suggest.
 
Did any of you ever read Stephen J. Gould's Full House? That's a pretty accessible book, and it gives you a flavor of these broad misconceptions re: evolution.
 
doctorquant said:
Did any of you ever read Stephen J. Gould's Full House? That's a pretty accessible book, and it gives you a flavor of these broad misconceptions re: evolution.

Same thing with "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The God Delusion," to a lesser degree, by Richard Dawkins.
 
deck Whitman said:
doctorquant said:
Did any of you ever read Stephen J. Gould's Full House? That's a pretty accessible book, and it gives you a flavor of these broad misconceptions re: evolution.

Same thing with "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The God Delusion," to a lesser degree, by Richard Dawkins.

Gould wasn't defending evolution, per se, so I don't know as I would put that book in the class of the two you mention. Rather, he was clarifying popular misconceptions regarding evolution. Among these, for example, is that Homo Sapiens represents some triumph of evolution. In fact, evolutionary theory sees the whole primate line -- perhaps even the whole body of multi-cellular species -- as an evolutionary backwater.

Bacteria represent the great success story of life's pathway. They occupy a wider domain of environments and span a broader range of biochemistries than any other group. They are adaptable, indestructible and astoundingly diverse. We cannot even imagine how anthropogenic intervention might threaten their extinction, although we worry about our impact on nearly every other form of life. The number of Escherichia coli cells in the gut of each human being exceeds the number of humans that has ever lived on this planet.

...

[W]hen we consider that for each mode of life involving greater complexity, there probably exists an equally advantageous style based on greater simplicity of form (as often found in parasites, for example), then preferential evolution toward complexity seems unlikely a priori. Our impression that life evolves toward greater complexity is probably only a bias inspired by parochial focus on ourselves, and consequent overattention to complexifying creatures, while we ignore just as many lineages adapting equally well by becoming simpler in form.

Scientific American, October, 1994.
 
doctorquant said:
Gould wasn't defending evolution, per se, so I don't know as I would put that book in the class of the two you mention. Rather, he was clarifying popular misconceptions regarding evolution. Among these, for example, is that Homo Sapiens represents some triumph of evolution. In fact, evolutionary theory sees the whole primate line -- perhaps even the whole body of multi-cellular species -- as an evolutionary backwater.

I'm out of my depth here, but like I said, I find it fascinating.

Why for instance are chimps so much stronger than us -- even if they throw like a girl?

What do human evolution and baseball have in common? Pretty much everything, according to a new Harvard study.

While anybody who's ever watched a chimpanzee fling poop at the local zoo can confirm that our primate cousins will sometimes nail an unlucky target, it's also quite obvious that their throwing style will not land them any major league pitching contracts.

According to a study published recently in Nature, the evolutionary and biological seeds for today's 90-mile-per-hour fastball were sewn roughly 2 million years ago. That's when a variety of evolved anatomical features began to coalesce in early humans, giving them the ability to hurl projectiles overhand at greater and greater speeds.

This ability, according to lead author and evolutionary biologist Neil T. Roach, vastly increased early man's ability to kill large prey -- and defend it from scavengers. At the same time, it allowed our ancestors to become part-time carnivores and set the stage for other critical developments.

"If we were not good at throwing and running and a few other things, we would not have been able to evolve our large brains, and all the cognitive abilities such as language that come with it," Roach said in a press release. "If it were not for our ability to throw, we would not be who we are today."

In a series of experiments involving Harvard baseball players, researchers used a variety of braces and other contraptions that they strapped to the athletes' limbs to isolate key movements in the throwing process. In many cases, the devices were intended to impede the players' ability to throw, essentially turning back the evolutionary clock.

What they found was that optimum throwing ability was associated with low, wide shoulders; a long flexible waist and the ability of the upper arm, or humerus, to rotate during the throw. They also found that the tendons and ligaments in modern humans store energy as they are stretched in the shoulder region -- such as when a pitcher cocks his elbow -- and allows for an explosive release of power.

Our chimp cousins lack most of these anatomical features, leaving them with an underhanded softball-like throwing style that would get them laughed off a little league baseball field. (Some chimps can throw overhand, but the results are even less impressive.)

Roach and colleagues say the combination of throwing features first appeared in Homo erectus and were refined as a result of natural selection.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-why-chimps-cant-throw-a-baseball-or-poop-at-90-mph-20130627,0,5821802.story

I get that a bigger brain is more important, but why wouldn't we also be as strong as a chimp?

(I'm honestly not trolling, or trying to sow doubt in the theory of evolution.)
 
YankeeFan said:
LongTimeListener said:
YankeeFan said:
deck Whitman said:
I honestly don't follow. The reason people don't grasp evolutionary biology isn't because they aren't smart. It's because they haven't made any kind of real study of it, formal or informal.

This is a true statement.

Do books like this make the topic interesting and approachable to the average person, or does it exploit them? Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.

No, books like this just fuel the legitimacy of this garbage and allow debates to continue about whether we should be teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. They really don't help anything, particularly because the author's premise is to construct a straw man (DARWIN SAID HE SOLVED EVERYTHING AND HE DIDN'T SO HA!!!) and then set flame to it.

I guess I'd have to read the book to fairly respond.

I found the discussion I heard yesterday to be interesting. (He was being interviewed by my main man, Michael Medved.)

I'm just not sure that he's doing what you suggest.
LongTimeListener said:
YankeeFan said:
deck Whitman said:
I honestly don't follow. The reason people don't grasp evolutionary biology isn't because they aren't smart. It's because they haven't made any kind of real study of it, formal or informal.

This is a true statement.

Do books like this make the topic interesting and approachable to the average person, or does it exploit them? Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle.

No, books like this just fuel the legitimacy of this garbage and allow debates to continue about whether we should be teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. They really don't help anything, particularly because the author's premise is to construct a straw man (DARWIN SAID HE SOLVED EVERYTHING AND HE DIDN'T SO HA!!!) and then set flame to it.

Insufficient facts always invite danger.
 
Riptide said:
There are wise and intelligent people to be found across many stations in life, and even among [gasp!] the impoverished. Do you judge everyone's intelligence by the job he or she holds down, or the resale value of their homes?

By definition, those people would not be average joes. They'd be exceptional joes.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top