Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _Runtu »

Hey, Kerry,

Just out of curiosity, are any of the old guard still friendly to you? I’d like to believe so, but then I know how some people treated me.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _RockSlider »

grindael wrote:Here is all you need to know about what he thinks about evolution...

http://miketgriffith.com/files/ldsleade ... lution.htm



3 Nephi 13:23
Book of Mormon
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Gee, remember when we walked in the light, partnered with the Gift of the Holy Ghost and those quotes made perfect sense to us? Remember the fear of the Devil chaining us up with the philosophies of man, which would suck all the light out of us, leaving us in darkness and dragging us down to hell?

Wow, 180 degrees from reality. Funny how ridiculous those quotes/beliefs are in the 21st century. Talking about walking in darkness and being chained up in a hell.
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _toon »

Runtu wrote:
Themis wrote:Do you have an example?


It almost sounds as if he believes "natural selection" has some kind of will that actively selects things. He seems not to have considered the idea that a genetic mutation could occur that doesn't have a specific "purpose" but ended up providing an important trait that helps a species survive a later condition.


I think it's easy to mistakenly attribute some kind of conscious will to natural selection. But this mistake can be attributed to ignorance and sloppiness.

In part, it's a result of how evolution is taught at an introductory level. And perhaps because most people are only exposed to it at an introductory level, which means they aren't equipped with a good enough understanding to withstand and counter all the bull-shit arguments against it. in my opinion, evolution and natural selection should be much more than a short, one month or less topic to be studied during a year of high school biology.

So Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, as an example, clearly explains that the title (and how he approaches much in the book) is a metaphor and that genes aren't selfish in the sense that the consciously and actively seek to replicate themselves. But if you don't have the background, and if you don't read the book, you can get can completely misunderstand that it is only metaphorical.
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _toon »

[quote="Themis"][quote="Runtu"][quote="Themis"]Do you have an example?[/quote]

It almost sounds as if he believes "natural selection" has some kind of will that actively selects things. He seems not to have considered the idea that a genetic mutation could occur that doesn't have a specific "purpose" but ended up providing an important trait that helps a species survive a later condition.[/quote]

Not just important traits, but lots more unimportant changes to ones DNA or possible resultant traits. As long as they are do not make survival and reproduction a lot harder they can remain in a population. Changes to our DNA are very low for each new organism, but not so low that each organism will have a small number of mutations. That's just the math and since populations tend to have huge numbers of organisms you tend to see everything possible with enough time. If DNA replication was perfect evolution would be very hard to occur.[/quote]

Wouldn't a potential example be a degenerate disease like Alzheimer's, that typically occurs only in people over 50. If, during periods where environmental and other forces favor selection, most people don't live to 50 and, if so, have long since ceased to reproduce before then, then a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's would not have been selected out. It might lay there dormant because precisely because it never negatively impacted genes' ability to replicate themselves.

It's kind of the opposite situation, but the principle is the same.
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _huckelberry »

Themis wrote:
Maksutov wrote:So, to you ancient ones on the board, this business of the drive by apologists...it seems that few apologists of any rigor come by anymore. Is that true? Or does it come and go? Are there patterns?


There used to be lots of them but they eventually left. I believe Dan Peterson put some effort into trying to get apologists to leave this site in favor of one that would protect them. Mormonism is so undefendable guys like Dan can only have success against some of the most ignorant critics, but that would usually not last as more knowledgeable critics would chime in and destroy his argument.


Around 2000 there was a message board attached to the Tanner web site. Daniel Peterson , Pahoran , Charles Pyle , and others posted a lot. Peterson occasionally said he was worried about his posting addiction and that he would have to cut back. He was spending enough time on message board argument to make that a realistic goal.

The apologists there complained that the one person moderator was censoring them so they got together started ZLMB ,a message board with multiple moderators and a strong majority of LDS apologists. Critics grew in numbers and strength till there was a big blow up.Speaking terms collapsed, apologists went to MAD and critics here. Ever since few apologists come here.

Peterson seems to have broken his addiction so at least that is good for him.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _Kishkumen »

Runtu wrote:I'm just having this vague recollection in the back of my brain of having interacted with an apologist named Michael T. Griffith. I can't figure out why I know his name. But, yeah, I'm not all that impressed with his apologetics, either.


Ah, OK. Well Tom Griffith belongs to an informal organization that promotes the efforts of the Givenses and the Bushmans. So, he is behind the scenes in what is now called by John Dehlin "neo-apologetics."

But if you were thinking specifically of Michael T. Griffith, then he is the author of a number of apologetic books, I believe. He is also kind of a Kennedy assassination enthusiast.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _Runtu »

Kishkumen wrote:Ah, OK. Well Tom Griffith belongs to an informal organization that promotes the efforts of the Givenses and the Bushmans. So, he is behind the scenes in what is now called by John Dehlin "neo-apologetics."

But if you were thinking specifically of Michael T. Griffith, then he is the author of a number of apologetic books, I believe. He is also kind of a Kennedy assassination enthusiast.


Ah, maybe that's it. I'm fascinated by Kennedy conspiracy theorists in the same way I'm fascinated by Mormon apologists. That may be where I ran across him.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's blather about the new book on Darwin

Post by _Maksutov »

Runtu wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:Ah, OK. Well Tom Griffith belongs to an informal organization that promotes the efforts of the Givenses and the Bushmans. So, he is behind the scenes in what is now called by John Dehlin "neo-apologetics."

But if you were thinking specifically of Michael T. Griffith, then he is the author of a number of apologetic books, I believe. He is also kind of a Kennedy assassination enthusiast.


Ah, maybe that's it. I'm fascinated by Kennedy conspiracy theorists in the same way I'm fascinated by Mormon apologists. That may be where I ran across him.


His Civil War links lean CSA and his JFK stuff leans Jim Garrison. Revisionism seems second nature to the dude.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Post Reply