I might have spelled their names wrong. They wrote a book about 10 years ago called "What Darwin Got Wrong". They pretty much summed up an old hobby-horse I'd been carrying around with me about Evolutionary Psychology, and the idiotic over wrought interpretations of some of the more popular science articles that come our from to to time concerning Zebra stripes, and lactose intolerance.PauloL wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:44 am.
First of all, I believe in Evolution, of course. This doesn't mean that I accept Darwinism. I think you can infer that from my posts. Further, I'm sorry that Evolution started and finished in the XIX century as Darwin's ideas kept paradigmatic, if not, regrettably for science, dogmatic. Sometimes I imagine that Earth was created again randomly so that Darwin wouldn't be born again and I wonder what theory of Evolution we'd have in the XXI century.
That thing about red hair is quite circular indeed. Evolution is expected to explain how on earth there are people with hair in whatever color, and they keep telling me how one color, or all except one, or whatever, extincts.
That's the same if I ask someone how to build a computer and all they keep telling me is how to choose defective ones and throw them away.
The origin of species is not the description of species. That was done before by Linnaeus.
Yes, I've read about abiogenesis of course, but I don't know any widely accepted theory. A few very well formulated theories from the scientific point of view, like Oparin-Haldane's primordial soup, are far from widely accepted for they are based on unproven hypothesis and are far from explaining how the very first primordial cell appeared, the minimal one capable of evolution.
Your last question deserved my greatest attention, however I find it a little confusing. I can't devise one thing on earth that can't be explained scientifically if that's your question. We have quite much uncontroversial theories for everything. We know what's matter to the detail of particles much smaller than atoms. We can trace the origin of the universe to the very first instant and even have interesting theories about multiverses. We can dive deep into more than 10Km below sea level and can fly in total security at huge speed and airplanes have been tested that reach upwards of 3.500Km/h. We eradicated one disease and prevented and controlled lots of diseases. Sadly, I can't place Darwin here for its tautological and incomplete nature, something that fortunately isn't shared by sound scientific theories.
Perhaps you'd like to read/comment my post on Mycobacterium tuberculosis, a small assay on evolutionary illusion by natural selection. Same for a post on tautological argumentation and limited knowledge by a renowned neo-Darwinian, Futuyma.
Could you offer a reference for your intentional fallacy and Fodor and Palimanteri ideas?
They are both committed to the theory of natural selection it is important to say, and apologise for the headline grabbing title. But the book is good.