hydralisk

Re:If you accept evolution, you must oppose over-regulation of the eco... on Sunday May 31, 2009 @10:32PM (#635406)

"The point this article is trying to make is that the notion of "spontaneous order" is fundamental to both the theory of evolution and the free market. One would be hard pressed to design from scratch a working flamingo, and one would similarly be hard pressed to design from scratch a working economy."

But what good is a flamingo? If you're trying to solve human problems, spontaneous order from some sort of survival-of-the-fittest system is not good enough. Things that are useful to humans require conscious design. Spontaneous order gave us wood, but it took a human engineer to design the wheel. Evolution by natural selection never could have designed such a tool spontaneously.

Sure, the economy is a lot more complicated than that, and the precautionary principle is sound advice. All the same, there's every reason to believe that humans are capable of designing something better, as long we're not reckless about it.

Re:If you accept evolution, you must oppose over-regulation of the eco... on Sunday May 31, 2009 @09:51PM (#635343)

The author is confusing accepting biological evolution as a fact with belief in natural selection as an all-powerful optimizing agent. As most biologists understand (since Gould & Lewontin's 1979 "Critique of the Adaptationist Program", anyway), evolution makes mistakes and leads to nonoptimal outcomes. There is every reason to believe that conscious human design can construct better systems than some sort of anarchical survival-of-the-fittest scheme.

In fact, saying so is blisteringly obvious. Virtually every human accomplishment has required conscious design. Evolution by natural selection could never have designed a wheel -- but we did. It may be tempting to employ biological principles to everything, but it's a mistake.

Re:Skepticism About the New "Missing Link" Fossil on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @04:39PM (#619270)

The publicity craze over this fossil is really disproportionate to the relevance of the find. Does anyone, except the occasional primatologist, really care whether anthropoids are more related to adapiforms or tarsiers? It's just not that exciting.

Goes to show that the media isn't anti-science or pro-science, because the hype goes both ways. The media is just dumb.