tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post8850012609069790945..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: Still missing the pointPeter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-31648393734990645172017-09-27T16:33:29.900-04:002017-09-27T16:33:29.900-04:00A recent 2017 study has documented that the Englis...A recent 2017 study has documented that the English translations of Blumenbach were faulty. Thus Gould's evaluation and that of many others were based on bad translations. See here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00048-017-0173-8<br />The Flying Mangoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15770760333835577609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-53203990125295507502013-07-06T00:10:08.035-04:002013-07-06T00:10:08.035-04:00I used to read a lot of Gould's books, but one...I used to read a lot of Gould's books, but one day I woke up and realized that he was a charlatan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-13978826098784427102013-07-05T18:31:22.796-04:002013-07-05T18:31:22.796-04:00The female sex drive
Of course, it is going to be...<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/how-strong-is-the-female-sex-drive-after-all/277429/" rel="nofollow">The female sex drive</a><br /><br />Of course, it is going to be modified by selection ... <br /><br />Of course, females are in a difficult position. Any open displays of sexuality is likely to be mistaken by the wrong sort of males ... life is so hard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-60456720026477123722013-07-03T12:18:47.706-04:002013-07-03T12:18:47.706-04:00Dear Mr. Frost,
I would like to know if you woul...Dear Mr. Frost, <br /><br />I would like to know if you would be interested in being interviewed for a documentary about men, women, sexual attraction and sexual selection. I could not find any contact in your webpage, so I am writing here hoping that you may see it. You may write back to me privately at cronopiototal@yahoo.com, or let me know in which email address I can reach you, in case that you are interested. It would be very short, perhaps primarily by email and eventually filmed with a small video camera. Thank you!Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-61567929202408674512013-07-02T14:12:15.324-04:002013-07-02T14:12:15.324-04:00Autor Desconhecido,
As the owner of this blog, I ...Autor Desconhecido,<br /><br />As the owner of this blog, I get to decide what is off-topic. Not you.<br /><br />'Peter Frost' isn't a pseudonym. It corresponds to a real person who publishes under his own name. I thus assume the consequences of what I write, and some of those consequences can be quite negative. I can deal with that. But I don't see why I should suffer for stupid things that anonymous commenters write.<br /><br />Lately, I've been getting a lot of extreme comments on my blog. You're not doing me a favor by writing such comments, although for you that might be a feature not a bug.<br /><br />If this continues, I'll have to impose comment moderation. Will that be necessary? Peter Fros_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-52261428765396020852013-07-02T06:02:25.977-04:002013-07-02T06:02:25.977-04:00***scientists actively working in the field, Gould...***scientists actively working in the field, Gould's has been ignored for many decades.***<br /><br />Yes, Robert Wright wrote some scathing essays in the New Republic, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_earthling/1996/11/homo_deceptus.html" rel="nofollow">Slate</a><br />and <a href="http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htmt" rel="nofollow">New Yorker</a> about Gould's dishonesty & incompetence in discussing evolutionary biology<br />. In the Slate article he wrote:<br /><br />" It all started in 1990, when I reviewed his book WonderfulLife for the NewRepublic. I argued, basically, that Gould is a fraud. He has convinced the public that he is not merely a great writer, but a great theorist of evolution. Yet, among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest--not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.:<br /><br />Gould apparently ignored the comments but The New Yorker article prompted a response from Gould - not actually bothering to rebut Wright, but just noting his surprise they ran it:<br /><br /><br />IThis winter, after a brief silence, Wright has come back into Gould's life with a vengeance. To coincide with the publication of Nonzero, Wright has orchestrated a flurry of bylined pieces in The New Republic, Time, and the New York Times. But it was his New Yorker article that drew blood. "Other people have attacked me before," Gould says. "But this was different. I've read The New Yorker my whole life; I consider it a friend. And this did feel, emotionally, like a betrayal by a friend...<br /><br />Gould, meanwhile, doesn't feel like the winner. "I still can't understand why The New Yorker ran that article," he says. And though he's been asked to review Wright's book, so far he has declined the invitation."<br /><br />http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/columns/culturebusiness/1931/index1.html<br />Kiwiguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-49674589542097337932013-07-02T05:25:41.071-04:002013-07-02T05:25:41.071-04:00@Peter - I suppose you are using open-mindedness o...@Peter - I suppose you are using open-mindedness on SJG's ???dishonesty as a rhetorical device - but as a professional you must know people who had close dealings with SJG, and can confirm beyond doubt that he was thoroughly dishonest and had no interest in discovering or propagating the truth nor in correcting error? <br /><br />The evidence on this is as solid and uncontradicted as anything gets, and if it isn't regarded as enough to convict him... well, then we might as well give up on scientific standards altogether.<br /><br />It is a matter of standards of proof. Within the invisible college, scientists have to prove themselves honest and competent or else they are ignored. <br /><br />It is not up to other scientists to come up conclusive evidence to legal standards of proof and with no alternative possible explanation that X is dishonest - they are assumed dishonest and incompetent until they show otherwise. And when they are shown to be sloppy or biased, then then *must* acknowledge the fact, publicly, or else that is that for them. <br /><br />At least, that is how *real* science works. Of course, there is very little of that nowadays. <br /><br />Among serious and competent scientists actively working in the field, Gould's has been ignored for many decades. Other people's opinions ought not to matter, since they are staking nothing upon them.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-44407135896471785702013-07-01T23:45:46.201-04:002013-07-01T23:45:46.201-04:00'''m starting to delete off-topic comm...'''m starting to delete off-topic comments more ruthlessly now. There are other venues for some of the topics you wish to discuss. Please avail yourselves of them.''<br /><br />My answers are completely related to Gould fraud. To understand why reason one public (or pubic) person lies about very important issues you need go more deep on the topics.<br />He's not lie because was naive, idealistic or something, but because make part of jewish agenda.<br />Unfortunatelly you need accept the bad reality or these bad reality some hour will be appear near in your house.Autor Desconhecidonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-49685157288505857232013-07-01T22:57:11.461-04:002013-07-01T22:57:11.461-04:00Anon and others,
I'm starting to delete off-t...Anon and others,<br /><br />I'm starting to delete off-topic comments more ruthlessly now. There are other venues for some of the topics you wish to discuss. Please avail yourselves of them.Peter Fros_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-7929897821041834202013-07-01T17:35:08.748-04:002013-07-01T17:35:08.748-04:00Mallards force themselves on female Black ducks an...Mallards force themselves on female Black ducks and intimidate the Black males, but surely they don't have a theory about the superiority of Mallards <a href="http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-09.htm" rel="nofollow">genes or penes</a>; do human groups need to have a theory to violate the natural rights of others?<br /><br />Tooby said "To restrict interbreeding is to cut off ones population from the slow influx of spreading favourable mutations being harvested across the species range {...] In Goulds view, most evolutionary change takes place when closely related biological lineages compete, with one surviving and spreading through the others' ranges while the others go extinct...there is not much difference between a incipient species and a 'race' and in Goulds world of sudden genetic revolutions there is not necessarily any difference at all... Gould does intimate that competitive ability between sibling species is often the deciding force" <br /><br />Gould said WW1 and 2 (and <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z8tDIQi5HaUC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=stephen+j+gould+westmoreland&source=bl&ots=u44fSzs-Ax&sig=4Kjy5KRu4RK7JEVnPu2f12CajaY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7tLRUYmlCYnK0QXq_ICICQ&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=stephen%20j%20gould%20westmoreland&f=false" rel="nofollow">Nam</a>) were the result of Blumenbach (and Haeckel). Yet according to Tooby, Gould was not really arguing against selection at the species level at all. Basically Gould was saying that it was statistical and logical fallacies that caused injustice and enormity. It is not obvious to me that any cultural, ethnic or political unit that ever existed was formed or motivated to commit aggression through an perception of superiority in some quality like beauty or intelligence.<br /><br />I suppose during interactions individual ducks can be said to have beliefs about the relative formidableness of those they are competing with though.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-91572378869857702882013-07-01T12:26:19.760-04:002013-07-01T12:26:19.760-04:00I doubt if it's only ducks:
http://www.ducks...I doubt if it's only ducks: <br /><br />http://www.ducks.org/conservation/waterfowl-biology/waterfowl-hybrids<br />(...)<br /><i>Nearly every waterfowl season, a hunter brings a photo of a strange duck to a DU biologist and asks, "What kind of duck is this?" Typically, the bird has characteristics of two waterfowl species—the wings of a mallard and the bill of a pintail, for example, or the tail of a wigeon and the profile of a wood duck. Known as hybrids, these birds result from the mating of two different species. <br />Hybridization, or crossbreeding, occurs when an individual of one species enters the geographic or ecological space of another species, and two individuals mate and produce offspring. Hybridization sometimes results from a mixed-species pairing. A male mallard, for example, will pair with a female black duck and prevent other male black ducks from pairing with that female. But hybridization can also result from forced copulation, where a male of one species forcibly mates with a female of another species. <br /><br />Waterfowl crossbreed more often than any other family of birds. Scientists have recorded more than 400 hybrid combinations among waterfowl species. Mallards crossbreed with nearly 50 other species, and wood ducks hybridize with a surprising 26 other species. Nearly 20 percent of waterfowl hybrid offspring are capable of reproducing.<br /><br />In North America, one of the most common wild hybrids results from mallard/pintail breeding. Mallards also commonly crossbreed with black ducks, wigeon, shovelers, cinnamon teal, green-winged teal, and gadwalls. </i><br />(...)<br /><br />http://www.ducks.org/conservation/waterfowl-biology/amazing-waterfowl-facts/page6<br />(...)<br /><i>While hybridization is very rare in the wild, mallards have been known to crossbreed with some 40 waterfowl species...The wood duck, known to have crossbred with as many as 20 other duck species, takes second place in the annals of waterfowl promiscuity.</i><br />(...)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-33844508710673333452013-06-30T22:46:55.976-04:002013-06-30T22:46:55.976-04:00Gould was a political activist first and a scienti...Gould was a political activist first and a scientist second.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-39496826217701660552013-06-30T15:40:32.499-04:002013-06-30T15:40:32.499-04:00Insofar as it suited his purpose, Gould was quite ...Insofar as it suited his purpose, Gould was quite the nominalist: "We abstract what we consider the “essence” of an entity, and then arrange our judgments by their degree of similarity to this assumed type"<br /><br />He switched feet to claim species corresponded to an objective reality, but races did not. <br /><br />"Species are unique in the Linnaean hierarchy as the only category with such objectivity. All higher units--genera, families, phyla, et cetera--are human conventions [...] subspecies are also partly objective but partly based on human decision. [...] Yet subspecies cannot be irrevocably unique natural populations (like full species) for two reasons: First, the decision to name them rests with human taxonomists, and isn’t solely dictated by nature. Second, they are, by definition, still capable of interbreeding with other subpopulations of the species and are, therefore, impermanent and subject to reamalgamation." See <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/1992/dec/whatisaspecies165#.UdB89_nVBhQ" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-2999712156887834012013-06-29T18:51:15.663-04:002013-06-29T18:51:15.663-04:00Johann Friedich Blummenbach should be imagined who...Johann Friedich Blummenbach should be imagined who are a chosen.<br /><br />Do not know anything about what really happened in World War II.<br />Blumenbach was not a racist, please stop using the word ugly, you guys invented by the German city of Frankfurt, mankind has lived 98% of his story without that thing, that denies, especially the Europeans, the right all natural and their biological prefer than the other, there is nothing wrong with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-29244403791240077802013-06-29T17:14:06.716-04:002013-06-29T17:14:06.716-04:00Yes, Gould posited unconscious manipulation as a s...Yes, Gould posited unconscious manipulation as a scientific norm, but implicitly he was exempting himself and anyone who agreed with him; skewering physical anthropologists as supremacists, thereby demonstrating he was better than those who constructed hierarchies of humanity. The man had his cake and ate it. A true <a href="http://www.loc.gov/about/awardshonors/livinglegends/bio/goulds.html" rel="nofollow">Living Legend</a>.<br /><br />Where would Hitler have been without racism? Well he would still have the heroes of Wagner as inspiration. Morover, he would still have had the concept of the Volk, which came from extreme egalitarian and cultural relativist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism#Epistemological_origins" rel="nofollow">Herder</a>. Admittedly Romantic ideas originated as a <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S-bkQwPGY2YC&pg=PA72&dq=Human+Evolution:++guide++debates+caspian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ETPPUeXgLcqS4ASmwoHIBw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Human%20Evolution%3A%20%20guide%20%20debates%20caspian&f=false" rel="nofollow">reaction against the scientific outlook of the Enlightenment</a> typified by Blumenbach. Without racism Hitler would still have have had the realist rationale for aggression:<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/308839/2/" rel="nofollow">THE</a> edgiest parts of Tragedy are when Mearsheimer presents full-bore rationales for the aggression of Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and imperial Japan. The German decision to push for war in 1914 was not a case of wacky strategic ideas pushing a state to start a war it was sure to lose. It was … a calculated risk motivated in large part by Germany’s desire to break its encirclement by the Triple Entente, prevent the growth of Russian power, and become Europe’s hegemon."<br /><br />One may wonder what Gould, would have done without a <i>concept of</i> racism that was widely accepted in the wider society. It's clear to me Gould was feted,not because he was original, but because he articulated the views of a very influential body of opinion among the higher, the most pacified, reaches of society. <br /><br />Questioning the reliability of human cognition used to be an argument used <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/balfour-and-evolutionary-argument.html" rel="nofollow">against atheists</a>. Gould used it to defend the new foundational belief of Western society.Seannoreply@blogger.com