1. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    24319
    08 Apr '10 15:30
    About the theory of evolution:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings
  2. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    08 Apr '10 15:34
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    About the theory of evolution:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings
    Can you summarize the article?
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    08 Apr '10 19:59
    TL;DR
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Apr '10 20:281 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Can you summarize the article?
    I have read about half, and he seems to be arguing that although he accepts common ancestry, he has reason to doubt natural selection.
    He seems like someone who is opposed to the Theory of Evolution, but cant afford to tackle it head on. The giveaway is his insistence on calling it 'Darwinism'.

    I think something he brings up in the first section is worth a discussion.
    He says that some people have suggested that one reason why we are not happy, or that we tend to deliberately harm ourselves, is that our brains did not evolve for our current environment.
    I think this argument is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that an animal which has successfully adapted to its environment is perfectly happy and never harms itself which is blatantly false. The fact is that we are still reproducing and thus despite our recent past, we are still reasonably well adapted to our current environment regardless of whether we are happy in it or not.
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Apr '10 20:40
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    About the theory of evolution:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings
    If pigs would have wings, they wouldn't be called pigs at all.
    But what would they have been called, what would they have been called...?
  6. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    08 Apr '10 20:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think this argument is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that an animal which has successfully adapted to its environment is perfectly happy and never harms itself which is blatantly false. The fact is that we are still reproducing and thus despite our recent past, we are still reasonably well adapted to our current environment regardless of whether we are happy in it or not.
    It also makes the assumption that evolution somehow is "complete" in the sense that living organisms are perfectly "adapted" to its environment. This is a fallacy. We are simply "fit enough" to reproduce successfully (like you point out).
  7. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    08 Apr '10 20:46
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    If pigs would have wings, they wouldn't be called pigs at all.
    But what would they have been called, what would they have been called...?
    Pigmeras?
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    08 Apr '10 23:07
    It's tough to root around with your nose in the mud if you're flying around!
Back to Top