Darwin would have never been a Neo-Darwinian | Denis Noble interview

Citizenschallengev4, why are you replying to yourself? I’ve seen you do that before and I don’t understand.

1 Like

I agree. It is another indication of the natural “growth” process. We attach it to biological life, but in reality everything in the universe undergoes growth of a kind.

The example above illustrates the power of (sugar) crystal growth, which was discussed by Robert Hazen in addition to biochemical growth and renewal.
Even purely mineral matter can exhibit growth and renewal. It shows that elements in a dynamic environment may have the potential for growth and bio-chemical responses to environmental pressures.


I get David and Ed mixed up, now you show me a paper with them together, great. This is science being done. It’s not “discrediting” anything. They are examining the science from the 60s. Well, I’d hope so.

Compare these

“In this article, we take a “back to basics” approach, explaining what group selection is, why its rejection was regarded as so important, and how it has been revived based on a more careful formulation and subsequent research.”

“explains why our approach to biology is the wrong way around.”

Be honest, it’s called diversion.
(and it’s unbecoming)

But it’s not worth the bother to be specific?

  • Appreciating the human mind ~ physical reality divide
  • Appreciating that “you” are an animal organism whose mind is the inside reflection of your body’s physiology as it negotiates the environment you’re embedded within.
  • That your body was created by hundreds of millions of years of evolving and improving.
  • Your mind is created by your body & brain, since brain is impossible and pointless without attached body.

If you find that boring and irrelevant, fine - that’s you. I find it vitally important! Telling me it’s (or me) is stupid and pointless doesn’t cut it.

Well something like this:

No example offered. L, you’ve done the same sort of thing.

Sometimes one needs to reply to themselves because no one is offering anything of substance, to reply to, and I’m still busy trying to explain myself, so variations on a theme are called for. :v:

And I agree with you.
Besides minerals also evolve amazingly enough.

Well, I’ve never tried “discrediting” Dawkins - Words I’ve used are like “outdated”, “blind spots”, possibly “incomplete”, missing out on subsequence findings that change and evolve the general understanding. Dawkins still stands behind the simplistic title “Selfish Gene” - but the general consensus is that that title is a tad too ego-centric and an invalid summary that can lead to dead ends.

There’s more substance and texture to the story.

Well they are about to get into the weeds and as serious scientists one expects nothing less.

That is a simplified frustrated layperson’s perspective about the entire approach to the public dialogue.

  • Starting discussions about consciousness with details of optical illusions, or color perception - excuse my lingo, but it’s ass backwards:

  • Starting stories about our existence with the mischief of an atomic solar system model and matter being 99.99999 nothing (cherry picking one simplest mathematical model) when in reality those valence shells surrounding at nucleus are anything but empty space.
    And scale matters! Quantum Weirdness created all the matter around us, but the matter at this macroscopic realm we live is profoundly different from what’s happening at the Planck Scale.

  • Here’s more backwards: Musing about the sources of consciousness being out in the cosmos, or within the torrent of quantum fluctuations we are immersed in - as opposed to simply being the product of an organism interacting with it’s environment and the moment.

  • Not making it clear that scientists know enough to know that consciousness is produced by our body/brain, as a result of the sensing the world and internal communication that any complex organism requires in order to function.
    Our consciousness is the inside reflection of our living bodies, process on that for a change.

  • Not explicitly recognizing from the outset that, all we know, all we observe, all we believe occurs within our mind - meaning even our gods originate from inside of ourselves.

Those are specific examples of what’s the wrong way around, I’m sure a few others will come to me later, but that’s beside the point.

You’re just pissed at me because I’ve lost my awe of experts?

Especially in light of the great future they and their neglect has created for us. Apparently you think we’re on the best of all possible paths, so you appear happy, or at least satisfied, with the status quo.

I am not and so long as my arguments get dismissed and sidelined and seldom honorably confronted with serious questions or insinuations, followed by reasoning and citations, I’m not going to be unimpressed with the spankings.

Trolling definition, with examples. This is not admin warning in any way shape or form.

  1. Changing the words someone says and arguing against the words they made, not what the person said.
    EX Changing “repetitious” to “irrelevant”.
    Also, “Dawkins still stands behind the simplistic title “Selfish Gene” “ – In the easiest source Wikipedia, his expression of regret for that is quoted.
  2. Demanding examples, in the form of links, when the example is 3 posts up and recent in time.
    CC said, “No example offered.”
    Darwin would have never been a Neo-Darwinian | Denis Noble interview - #14 by citizenschallengev4
    If your response was valid, why the additional demand?
  3. Saying they (the troll) didn’t say something, when they did.
    “Well, I’ve never tried “discrediting” Dawkins”
    Post 12 “Note: The literature discrediting the “selfish gene” approach to evolution is extensive.”
  4. Mind reading, instead of asking for thoughts or clarifying thoughts.
    CC, addressing Lausten: “Apparently you think we’re on the best of all possible paths, so you appear happy, or at least satisfied, with the status quo.”

I don’t get pissed. I evaluate and respond, according to the situation. I’d love to meet you in a pub some day where we can get royally pissed, although for health reasons, I don’t do that much either. But that’s the only kind of pissed I would get.

What’s weird/interesting here is you agree with my two examples. The first one is from one of the scholarly texts you listed, the second one is from the OP. It’s the description of the interview. The difference between us is you wanted to discuss the second one and I didn’t. I don’t always say why I’m not interested in someone’s post, but this time I did, and so we have a thread about why I should be interested in something that is described as “a simplified layperson’s perspective”.

The bullet points are other topics. I see the relationship here, but I’m not going to follow those in this thread.

It’s an opinion statement. For one to say they think something or someone is better than the other is mere opinion. It’s like saying you prefer oranges over apples because you think they taste better. One doesn’t have to know why they think/feel that way, because it’s its based on feelings, not rationality.

Yeah okay. Just that I’d have enjoyed doing a little deep diving into some aspects of Noble claims. I only learned about him because things he said made sense to me, then I look up some articles and he still mades sense to me, I’m willing to explore him, and you know, a target is always nice to work with.