Skewering James Shapiro (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 21:23 (4833 days ago)
I wish I could get into this book. His scientific findings are reviewed and frighten the Darwinist reviewer for turning Darwin theory topsy-turvy:-http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/08/yet-another-post-darwinism/
Skewering James Shapiro
by broken_cynic , Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 23:57 (4833 days ago) @ David Turell
I wish I could get into this book. His scientific-You haven't read the book, but you're ready to judge that his findings are scientific (insinuating that the perspective of the reviewer is not.) Do you have any basis for this beyond liking the cut of Shapiro's jib? -> findings are reviewed and frighten -Citation needed.-> the Darwinist reviewer-Definition needed. -> for turning Darwin theory topsy-turvy: Darwin theory? Is that supposed to be synonymous with existing theory of evolution or in contrast to? Never mind the part where you somehow know that a book you haven't read upsets a theory you don't like.
Skewering James Shapiro
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 05:41 (4833 days ago) @ broken_cynic
Never mind the part where you somehow know that a book you haven't read upsets a theory you don't like. I have watched an hour lecture by him. i know what is on his mind and it will turn Darwinism on its head. Not that I dis-believe in evolution. It obviously happened, but it appears to turn out that organisms have a lot more control over their genome than previously realized. Shapiro is not an anti-Darwin character, so much as a reasearcher who is going to change it in many ways. New paradigms are always hard to swallow for so many.
Skewering James Shapiro
by broken_cynic , Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 14:23 (4833 days ago) @ David Turell
New paradigms are always hard to swallow for so many.-It's the self-promoting bullshit that sticks in my craw.
Skewering James Shapiro
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 15:19 (4833 days ago) @ broken_cynic
New paradigms are always hard to swallow for so many. > > It's the self-promoting bullshit that sticks in my craw.-You haven't read the book. How do you know it is bs? The book has finally made it to my bedside. A biochemical review will follow. And aren't PZ & Dawkins self-promoting bs? I hope you have read Thomas Kuhn.
Skewering James Shapiro
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 11, 2011, 04:04 (4832 days ago) @ David Turell
New paradigms are always hard to swallow for so many. > > > > It's the self-promoting bullshit that sticks in my craw. > > You haven't read the book. How do you know it is bs? The book has finally made it to my bedside. A biochemical review will follow. And aren't PZ & Dawkins self-promoting bs? I hope you have read Thomas Kuhn.-Kuhn caused a shift in my thinking, that's for sure. It centralized the idea for me (in MY words) that science is only really reliable over very long stretches of time. The key thing to remember is that science really is evolution by natural selection.-David hates it when I say this, but even if nothing changes in the peer review system as it is, wrong ideas are always expunged--it's just whether or not you're patient enough to let nature take its course...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Skewering James Shapiro
by broken_cynic , Saturday, August 13, 2011, 01:22 (4830 days ago) @ David Turell
New paradigms are always hard to swallow for so many. > > > > It's the self-promoting bullshit that sticks in my craw. > > You haven't read the book. How do you know it is bs? The book has finally made it to my bedside. A biochemical review will follow. And aren't PZ & Dawkins self-promoting bs? I hope you have read Thomas Kuhn.- Matt sent me a link to a talk of his on youtube some months ago. I was able to watch about 10 minutes before I had to turn it off in disgust. The review you linked conveyed almost precisely the same impression of his book as I got from that brief exposure. Does that necessarily make me 'right?' Not at all, but it does make me completely uninterested in anything he has to say and of a very low opinion of the man.-I have not read Kuhn, but unlike Shapiro, his is on the list of books I intend to read. I will bump it up that list a ways.-No, I would not consider PZ and Dawkins to be self-promotional. Neither of them are trying to sell their own product. Of course, they are both happy to sell more books (even if PZ is only just getting started on that venture,) but I'm referring to the ideas they promote. Neither of them is saying anything new or unique, or making any claim to do so. Shapiro on the other hand has a huge stake in convincing people that his ideas are revolutionary.
Skewering James Shapiro
by David Turell , Saturday, August 13, 2011, 03:22 (4830 days ago) @ broken_cynic
Shapiro on the other hand has a huge stake in convincing people that his ideas are revolutionary.-I'm about 35 pages in. This is a giant review article much like in J. of Biological Reviews, but too large for any journal. The citations alone from the literature are 1162! It is a massive discussion of epigenetics.
Skewering James Shapiro
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 16:06 (4799 days ago) @ David Turell
The Book by Shapiro "Evolution" is a massive review article, covering every new avenue of study into epignetics,ways in which the cell or organism can adapt its genetics to combat a new challenge in nature. Many of the new avenues are barely opened, raising more questions than answers. But the overall import of the book's new theory is that it appears that intelligence lies within the newly discovered mechanics of genome changability. It smackes of teleology and this drives hidebound Darwinists nuts, as the following review shows.-Shapiro goes not like ID and says so; but the ID folks love to quote him, because he is turning Darwinism-of-old on its head. He is a leading example of why the Altenberg 16 had to meet two years ago to consider a new group-think for the Neo-Darwin contingent.-http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/08/yet-another-post-darwinism/
Skewering James Shapiro
by David Turell , Sunday, June 10, 2012, 15:35 (4528 days ago) @ David Turell
Larry Moran has a review of Shapiro's book, mainly complaining about what he feels Shapiro left out or ignored. Moran implies that Shapiro doesn't know or recognize these ommisions, inferring Shapiro is not properly educated in his field. What Moran discusses is relatively unimportant to Shapiro's thesis re' epigentics and self-directed evolution. Moran chooses to ignore the meat of the discussion. Like Dawkins, whom he quotes, he simply wishes the subject of epigenetics would go away.-http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/125/135-Be sure to download the pdf file.
Skewering James Shapiro
by David Turell , Thursday, August 30, 2012, 03:26 (4447 days ago) @ David Turell
Another reviewer can't back off from natural selection:-http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/4/423.full-"The matter of selection is then virtually ignored until the final section of the book. There we read, as one of nine bullet points that summarize the core message: "The role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection operates as a purifying but not creative force [emphasis added]." -I cannot imagine many evolutionary biologists subscribing to that position."-But there are many. Natural selection cannot operate unless presented with variations, and natural selection does not create variations, it can only filter them. That filtering function is very important, but is secondary to initial novel appearances. That is so obvious I don't know why there are two schools of thought. Innovation then filtration, why is that so hard to understand. Two parts of evolution, both equal in their own way.