tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post8062088487521286960..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Getting past evolutionary pointilism--or creationism in the journal Nature?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-48523219416947454602010-07-30T15:30:06.669-04:002010-07-30T15:30:06.669-04:00Well, yes, of course a joke....except that perpetu...Well, yes, of course a joke....except that perpetuating any kind of event rather than process view of species formation is misleading and in today's day and age should not occur among scientists, at least. And that kind of misleading interpretation isn't a joke.<br /><br />Of course, in today's day and age, with the ugly and benighted kind of creationism around, one has to be careful even about jokes, I guess.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-80079299896548178172010-07-30T11:02:34.265-04:002010-07-30T11:02:34.265-04:00...but "creationism"? C'mon.
Nice MT......but "creationism"? C'mon.<br />Nice MT headline, misleading but eye-catching. Oh, wait, it's a joke, right? hahahahaoenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-17889028801265704732010-07-29T10:18:34.600-04:002010-07-29T10:18:34.600-04:00I meant our July 29 post taking on the New England...I meant our July 29 post taking on the New England Journal of Medicine. It's not just Nature we take to task.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-89519246868084398422010-07-29T10:16:07.763-04:002010-07-29T10:16:07.763-04:00I'm not sure what Anne means 'subsequent&#...I'm not sure what Anne means 'subsequent', but in this post we finish by (I thought) clearly saying that this was not a problem in the paper, nor by the authors, but by the editorial staff.<br /><br />We 'whine' because the public, and I believe many or even most evolutionary biologists, and certainly a lot of parigeneticists (human biomedical, bioinformatic, epidemiological, etc.) widely express such simplistic views. Not thinking in population or evolutionary terms is common and, I think, should be corrected and resisted.<br /><br />We read and subscribe to Nature, so what it means to be 'objective' is debatable. We try to find good science stories, and to point out bad aspects. There are plenty of hyperbolists, but far too few trying to apply a critical (in the proper sense of 'evaluative') eye, I think.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-89920502409020100882010-07-29T10:11:27.051-04:002010-07-29T10:11:27.051-04:00Indeed, OE, we thought of you when writing this po...Indeed, OE, we thought of you when writing this post. Thus, the subsequent post.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-48260614380574018802010-07-29T10:09:43.207-04:002010-07-29T10:09:43.207-04:00Do the authors of the featured scientific article ...Do the authors of the featured scientific article itself make the "point" in time claim you complain about from the poorly worded headline? <br />I think not. Worry more about content and whine less about Nature covers and headlines! I'm starting to worry about your ability to be objective when it comes to Nature.occamserasernoreply@blogger.com