Comments on: Snakes on a Primate

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:22:54 +0000

Thanks Isaac,
You're confusing two different statements. The comments about the arms race has nothing to do with primates controlling their own evolution. I agree with you that the arms race analogy is appropriate. I only thought they way she said it was odd.
However, it is the next statement by Dr. Isbell in which she says the primates control their evolution. “Primates went a particular route,” Isbell told LiveScience. “They focused on improving their vision to keep away from [snakes].

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:17:17 +0000

The claim that you don't understand the first thing about evolutionary theory is an unjustified insult and I apologize for making it (since I really have no way of knowing what your understanding of evolutionary theory was if all you were doing was criticizing the Fox reporter).
As for Dr. Isbell's words, you are still claiming that she said primates were in control of their evolution, when she did no such thing (nor did the reporter report her as believing any such thing).
All she said was that in her theory of mammal evolution, snakes and primates developed new behaviors and morphologies at the same time.
This sort of concurrent and opposed development can be explained in terms of an arms race, because an arms race is another sort of concurrent and opposed development.
The fact that in an arms race a nation is in control of its development is as irrelevant to the biological theory as is the fact that arms races involve explosive materials.
The fact that Dr. Isbell used this metaphor to describe primate evolution does not imply that she believes primates are in control of their evolution any more than it means she believes snakes and primates were detonating explosives on each other.
Am I making myself clear now?
Or are you going to say that because Detroit automakers describe the modern sedan as “evolving” from the Model T, therefore they must believe that automotive design is random and undirected?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:09:38 +0000

But here

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:38:23 +0000

To a degree you're correct. The FoxNews article is not a scientific journal and we should not expect the complex scientific language in it we would were it a scientific journal. However, everything I poked fun at was in the evoluitonary biologists' own words- not how the author of the article described them.
As I noted, I was poking fun at Dr. Isbell's own words in regards to the idea that primates were in control on their evolution. I in no way implied that all evolutionary biologists believe that, which is part of why I made fun of it- according to evolutionary biologists natural selection is a blind non-intelligent process, so to read one saying otherwise is rather odd.
Also note that I labled the article “irrational,” not the theory. By extending my comment to the theory itself you've made a straw man and complained about that instead. It actually kind of sounds like you agree with my assessment of the article being irrational.
I haven't read the scientific journals, so you're right that I don't know how intelligent or rational the theory itself is (I wonder how you're justified in claiming it is?). However, since I was only talking about the article, I don't see how that's relevant. Please enlighten me how your claim that I “clearly don't understand the first thing about evolutionary theory” isn't an unjustified insult.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:15:03 +0000

I've found it amusing to hear evolutionary proponents describe the history of supposed evolutionary developments in terms that mandate conscious, decision making skills. When taken to task for such descriptions the response is, often, that they are merely exercising artistic license. Isn't it interesting that the best way to describe a supposedly mindless process is by making analogies to processes of the mind?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:16:01 +0000

Of course it isn't a scientific article — you read it on Fox News.
Articles Dr. Isbell has published on this in scientific journals ARE scientific articles however, and making fun of how Fox News reports on her theory is not really relevant to her theory itself.
Furthermore it bugs me how people constantly criticize the METAPHORS (arms race in this case) that evolutionary biologists use to explain evolution as if the metaphors were part of the theory itself.
You criticize the news article as if evolutionary biologists actually believed that primates are in control of their evolutionary destinies or some such nonsense.
This is bogus. Clearly the arms-race metaphor was chosen to EXPLAIN how natural selection acts on a population IN TERMS FROM HUMAN SOCIETY.
To criticize the choice of the metaphor would be like criticizing theologians who try to explain the doctrine of justification by using metaphors of traffic tickets by sayin “ooh, this is absurd — certain theologians think God is only a traffic cop.”
I'm not saying I believe Dr. Isbell's theory, (I am a young-earth creationist myself), but it is an intelligent and very rational theory and you do her and your readers a great disservice by mocking it when you clearly don't understand the first thing about evolutionary theory.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Isaac Demme