It’s Not Simple, Stupid.

| 4 Comments

As many of the Sciencebloggers have already mentioned, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute is up to his usual stupidity. In this particular instance, he’s attempting, in a typically inept fashion, to fisk Carl Zimmer’s recent article in National Geographic. So far, I haven’t chimed in, mostly because everyone else has done such a good job that there wasn’t much to add.

Today, though, Karmen pointed out a passage that I’d somehow missed the first time I read Luskin’s piece. In the first part of his “rebuttal,” Luskin wrote:

The article called evolution a “simple” process. In our experience, does a “simple” process generate the type of vast complexity found throughout biology?

Karmen and PZ have both already pointed out the silliness of claiming that simple processes can’t lead to complex results. I’m going to talk about something different, but every bit as silly: the idea that evolution is a simple process.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):

4 Comments

There is a very nice book for the mathematically-ept entitled “The Simple Genetic Algorithm”. To understand this simplicity, as presented by the author, you should have a good grasp of deterministic chaos, strange attractors and all that…

I think the *process* is elegantly simple. The substrate (matter, rather broadly) is not, yet the product (diverse evolving lineages) definitely is complex with simple generalities observable throughout the bits we see. Casey Luskin could study more.…

Rustopher.

Zimmer is not a scientist.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on November 21, 2006 2:22 PM.

Australian Lungfish update was the previous entry in this blog.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the new Carl Sagan is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter