Doesn’t seem very intellectually honest to make up your own non-standard definition then use the made up one as a basis for your argument, don’t you agree?
Address the definition, don’t just cast aspersions.
Dale, he’s just calling a spade a shovel. Oh, wait, that’s right --it IS!
1 Like
Wow, Tim --you’ve got the wrong end of a donkey in mind to make that claim! You should study biology!
1 Like
Modern philosophy of science is concerned with understanding how scientists work, not telling them standards they should adhere to.
In the case of mechanisms, it is an attempt to provide a philosophical framework that is better suited to the types of explanations used in modern science, and in particular life sciences. Cartesian and Newtonian versions of mechanical were based on classical physics only.
So the short answer to your question is: ask a biologist…
ETA: what the philosophers do is make sure they become experts in the fields of science they are applying their philosophical work to before trying to do philosophy involving it.
2 Likes
Funny that the scientists in the relevant fields have come to diametrically opposite conclusions from you. It is now well established that eukaryotes evolved primarily through endosymbiosis.
1 Like
That automatically invalidates it, doesn’t it, and makes it dishonest, how? Timothy needs a nickname other than ‘Interlocutor’. Leaving ‘Unspecified’ is probably a good idea.
It is now a well established just-so story that eukaryotes evolved primarily through endosymbiosis.
1 Like
All we’re talking about is the concept of a rotary motor.
Evo-Devo
For example:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evo.devo.html
EVO-DEVO:
A New, Exciting Topic for Biology Teachers!
Evolutionary Developmental Biology: This cutting-edge area of biological research is enjoying much attention, and providing dramatic, visual confirmation of evolution. More importantly, the work is bringing clear, compelling evidence for macroevolution . Every knowledgeable biology teacher who recognizes the reality of evolution will want to share this exciting new material with students.
I guess my question is, where else would evo-devo be taught, if not in a developmental biology course?
Seriously @swamidass?
Come now. Must we quibble about definitions again? You are quite aware of what “creationist” meant in my comment. You are not a creationist as the term is usually applied.
He hasn’t expressed a position. He’s at the stage of just a seeker after truth, just innocently asking questions that happen to confound the experts. He’s never said what his alternative to common descent is, at least so far.
1 Like
Why does evodevo lead you to believe endosymbiosis and the evolution of eukaryotes should be covered in an intro dev bio course?
@mung go back and read the original context before tilting at another windmill. You are just revealing your bias or inablility to follow a conversation. Seriously.
As for where should evodevo be taught? That is a change of topic. We were asked about eukaryote evolution.
It seems that @Guy_Coe is the sort of person who calls a spade a spade. And if he sees a shovel and cannot tell the difference, he will call that a spade, too.
1 Like
I don’t think his definition was unreasonable. Do you?
1 Like
Why not just admit that you misspoke, or were less clear than you could have been, and then we can just move on?
Here’s what you apparently meant to write (but didn’t):
Why would we expect to see the endosymbiotic theory of eukaryote origins being taught in a developmental biology course?
We wouldn’t.
He’s just doing what he does best.
Everyone seems to have understood him except you. Did you actually misunderstand him, or were you just scoring points in your private game? Why bring this up at all?
3 Likes
I think we would all like to see actual evidence instead of rhetoric and semantic arguments. If your entire argument rests on how you define a word then you don’t have a scientific argument.
3 Likes
How scientific does the concept of a rotory motor need to be?
Concepts are subjective. In science, you need objective and empirical evidence. Using the same word to describe two independent objects does not make the objects equivalent.