Here is a good example, where we are treated to the vapid analysis of one Laszlo Bencze. Bencze seems to think that evolution should be "laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton’s Mechanics or Einsteins [sic] Relativity", but it is not. And therefore it's wrong. Or something.
Who is Laszlo Bencze? As far as I can see, the guy's just some wedding photographer who lives in Sacramento. No evidence that I can see that he's ever studied science at an advanced level, let alone biology or evolution or mathematics.
Anyway, Bencze is wrong. If you learn more about evolution than you can find in creationist cartoon books, you know right away that the mathematics of evolution is well-studied and taught in biology classes at nearly every university. For example, there's Haldane's celebrated calculation of the probability of fixation of a new beneficial allele A in a large population; it's about 2s, where s is the selective advantage of A. How much do you want to bet that Bencze doesn't know this classic result from 1927 (!), let alone be able to derive it? Can he state and prove the Hardy-Weinberg theorem? It's not that hard! Does he know the basics of coalescent theory? Very, very doubtful.
Yup, Bencze's just another in a parade of ignorant anti-evolution blowhards. That's why it's so funny to see him promoted by the intelligent designoids as an expert with a point of view worth publishing.
12 comments:
Your link to that UD post is broken (an extraneous quote symbol).
I'll credit Bencze with giving a clear statement of the strawman cartoony version of evolution that they keep refuting.
Boom! Vapid analysis not found!
Good! :)
Can you recommend an introduction to the mathematics of evolution?
Luke: there are lots of different books that deal with mathematical aspects of evolution. I am not an expert in the area, but a few titles come to mind, such as Nowak's Evolutionary Dynamics, Hofbauer and Sigmund, and The Evolution of Cooperation.
There's no better evidence for the claim that ID has peaked and is rapidly declining into irrelevance than watching the parade of dimwits at UD...
Maybe dear mr. Bencze should take a stab at this:
Biological evolution and Statistical Physics.
Now Laszlo Bencze weighs in on the question, "What IS a gene?"
Ask a wedding photographer.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/laszlo-bencze-responds-to-but-what-is-a-gene/
Spinoza repaired glasses, Einstein worked in a patent office,..why would someone having a real job somehow disqualify them to comment intelligently on difficult or complex topics? This is not only elitist but illogical. Find a flaw in his reasoning and point it out...that's how civil discourse works.
It is neither elitist nor illogical. It is a matter of realism.
Tell me, when you need your appendix out, do you visit a tailor? When you need your car repaired, do you visit a butcher?
What makes Jeffrey Shallit any more knowledgable than Laszlo Bencze. I can tell you one thing, he failed miserably by condemning Bencze without so much as even a phone call to determine what Bencze did or did not know. I can tell you another thing, Bencze HAS studied this extensively and with a far more open mind than what Shallit examples. I will sooner pay attention to a man who studies and forms a position than a man who condescends and criticizes without answering the argument with a reasoned approach. Bencze 1 : Shallit 0
I have published a paper on the topic of the fraud of intelligent design in a philosophy journal. Has Bencze?
You tell me: what qualifications does Bencze have on the subject?
You haven't even bothered to read my writing on the subject.
Furthermore, I pointed out specifically in my piece why Bencze's claim about the mathematics of evolution was wrong. You simply ignored this.
Post a Comment