PZ Myers responds to my critique of evolution, ignores current research by Klingenberg

As faithful readers have knowledge of, I am no friend of intelligent design. You would think that this alone would make PZ Myers, professor of evolutionary genetics at U of M, friendly to my research. But no one can do! Recently I politely asked Myers what he thought of my research on Evolution (or EvoDevo):

Unfortunately for him but fortunately for Honesty in Science, he proceeded to go on a Twant:




Now, in my original research into this question, I pointed out that the following conjunction

(1) Evolution happens via mutant descent;
(2) Mutants are negligibly likely to reproduce

are logically inconsistent. Because (2) is inconvertibly disputeless, (1) must be false, and hence evolution has serious holes (which E.O. Wilson has already shown, BTW). I have also discovered moral objection to evolution here.

Now it is worth noticing that Christianity “Peter” Klingenberg and his colleagues have shown in their work, “Morphological Integration and Developmental Modularity,” that the existence of mutants is doubly unlikely in the first places, because if there were mutants, than morphological integration would disintegrate into ashes. This is unsurprising in light of E.O. Wilson’s (I think?) “Convalescing Theory”, according to which mutated “alleles” break down or “convalesce” only when they share the same originating genomes, which is exceedingly (read: very) unlikely.

But what about PZ’s LOGIC? We can ignore his latter two Tweets, because they merely add hominem to insults. But he does say one thing of interest: “I’m a mutant, you’re a mutant, everyone is a mutant. I’ve got a wife & 3 kids. QED, you’re wrong.” First, the “QED” (sic): what follows from this is only that PZ’s wife and kids, and I/me, are/am mutants. But it does NOT follow that I’m wrong. Why not? Think about it! i never said that mutants themselves cannot meet other mutants and reproduce. It’s true that they can’t, but it’s not what I said. So it turns out that PZ has refuted a blog made of straw. I suspect this will damage his Twitter follow-rate, though in the days of Trump mania, one cannot be sure!


Fighting the moderately good fight on probability

Recently I’ve been engaged in intense combat over probability theory (readers will remember my research in this area – here and here) at an unlikely venue, a blog called “Feminist Philosophers.” I’ve been debating views on probability with English professor David Wallace, who merely adds hominem to my criticisms.

This should encourage everyone! You need not be “officially” “expert” in “disciplines” in order to make discoveries in them. This applies to both Dave and me (though I obviously think I have the upper hand).

My exchange with Avram Chomsky

In recent times, I asked Avram (“Ave” for short):

Greetings, Professor Avram Chomsky. I am finding myself wondering: how does losing one’s ability in, say, a second-language affect (if at all), one’s memories of conversations one had in that language? Perhaps in your journeys in linguistics you have not discovered this answer, but I did not know who else to ask.

Nikolay Sokolov
Blog: https://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

He replied:

Interesting question, but I’ve never seen any study of it.

This shows that my investigations have vexed even the greatest minds of our times and places! I try not to boast on this blog, but sometimes the going gets hard! I think you’d do the same!