Anecdotes & Encounters

A thread for anecdotes, preferably with gratuitous name-dropping.

Here’s one I posted in a Substack comment:

Aug 12

“You should be obsessed about something.”

At a gifted and talented enrichment program at the local university (SWTSU, San Marcos, Texas, now TU) in 1984, I met another 12 year-old, with a weird name similar to mine, “Elon”, who had a kind of British accent, from South Africa, IIRC. Annoying as hell, wouldn’t shut up about going to Mars, no interest in collegial exploration of ideas, everything was competitive with him. Nevertheless, he was way sharper, more focused, irrepressible and energetic than any other kid I’d met. We exchanged addresses, were going to do a pen-pal thing, but I never got around to it. I wonder what happened to him?

Lessons: first when you meet somebody extraordinary, especially when you’re young, keep in touch.

Second, having one obsession and sticking to it will take you farther than keeping your options open.

Around the same time, maybe a few months earlier, my family visited a guy in Austin who sold used computers out of his upstairs condo. The only one he had on hand was an Apple III, which he said was his business partner’s idea – he said it was a terrible computer and not to buy one. I didn’t see anything special about him, really, he was a real salesman, but he was was totally focused on selling my parents on computers that he didn’t actually have, but could totally get, he said. Walking back to the car afterwards, my mom said he was going to go far, even that his business card might be worth money later. I didn’t see it, myself.

Fast forward four years or so, I’m a sophomore boarding at St. Stephen’s School near Austin, they sponsor a “career night” in the cafeteria. Hardly anybody bothers to walk the 50 or 100 feet from the dorms to attend, maybe ten students. They have some hippie artist chick, Steven Weinberg, (the only person other than Maxwell to unify two physical forces – electroweak and electromagnetism, respectively), and Michael Dell, whom we met in the last paragraph. He was worth about $20M at the time, not bad for still being in his early 20s, though he would later be the 3rd richest man in the world, and is still in the top ten.

Weinberg looked like he’d pulled a decade of back-to-back all-nighters, and talked about how hard he was finding superstring theory – not really of much use to us “young adults”. Dell had an obviously hand-tailored white silk business shirt. He fidgeted like a whole class of third-graders. “Type A++ – this is the kind of guy that wears out the furniture in cardiologists’ waiting rooms,” I thought to myself. He had some canned humblebrag about how hard it was to manage massive growth year after year, also not much use to us.

Question time: I asked how he’d lined up his suppliers. He wouldn’t say a word on the topic. It seemed pretty cold, to me under the circumstances. What, were we kids going to outcompete him or something? It turns out I had inadvertently hit a sore spot. He was slow-paying his suppliers to an outrageous degree to finance that rapid growth, right up to the limit that would put them out of business – and later, he probably did put some of them out of business by bringing manufacturing in-house.

Lessons: there is no substitute for ruthlessness and energy in business, nor for exceptional salesmanship. If you have these, don’t go to college, the wasted time will cost you millions per hour. One may think one can be ruthless, but it’s rare to to be as crystal clear about it in one’s mind as Dell: in business, no one is your friend, you owe nothing to anybody, not suppliers, not partners, and especially not some snot-nosed kid with a sharp question.

13 Likes

Intermountain Yearly Friends (Quaker) Meeting is still held in Ghost Ranch, Abiquiu New Mexico, where Georgia O’Keeffe lived and painted from the 1930s on.


(John Loengard, 1967)

I was there in the early ’80s, age nine and ten.



(Steven Bundy Phototours)

brintonturkle

Brinton Turkle was there, a children’s book writer and illustrator best known for Obadiah Starbuck, an early 19th century Quaker boy on Nantucket. “Thy Friend, Obadiah” was a 1970 Caldecott Honor book, but I preferred the first in the series, “Obadiah the Bold”


Though Brinton was monochrome colorblind, he painted well in color, which he accomplished, he said, through a well-organized paint box and “knowing what colors things were supposed to be.” He also had many amusing anecdotes about his childhood in the mortuary business.

See more of Brinton Turkles’s art at the Eric Carle Museum of Picture Book Art.

5 Likes

Reposting from a comment on “Jane Psmith’s” review of: Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony, by Robert B. Edgerton from Mr. and Mrs. Psmith’s Bookshelf Substack, which has some of the best and most thought-provoking writing I have read, highly recommended.

“garymar” commented:

I have the book Road Belong Cargo, from which the Wikipedia page is substantially derived, and I’ve read it at least twice. Much of it concerns Yali, the New Guinean whom Diamond used as a foil in his own book.

Yali was an amazing man, as you say a politician but also a real war hero who did a legendary trek of 40 miles through the densest and most impenetrable New Guinea forest with an Australian Army officer to escape the Japanese. He even visited the cities of Australia and had a close look at all its “cargo”.

But he seems never to have escaped his tribal viewpoint. Even after visiting Australia he was still looking for the secret that would produce cargo for his people.

I replied:

Jared Diamond was himself a bit like that New Guinea cargo cult leader visiting Australia. Yali believed there was a secret to the white man’s cargo, so did Diamond. Yali thought the secret was straight up magic, Diamond thought it was magic technology and various sorts of luck and happenstance.

In 1991, back when he was just an ornithologist with a half-completed manuscript, Jared Diamond visited the Quaker study center Pendle Hill, near Philadelphia. I had dinner with him and, IIRC, Peter Bien (Kazantakis’ translator, like Diamond of Jewish descent, but a “weighty Friend” for many years). Diamond had a Mennonite beard (no mustache) which seemed to me to accentuate the untrustworthy, fake feeling I had about him, that and his odd disinterest in ornithology. Not many years before I had been working a bit with ornithologists in Montaverde, which has more species of birds than anywhere else in this hemisphere, but he wasn’t interested in quetzals with yard-long tails or the feeling of holding the world’s smallest hummingbird.

Quakers, Friends of Truth, invented so much of the modern world that we nearly stand in the same relation to the Jared Diamonds of the world as they do to cargo cultists. They just can’t believe the truth (in any sense), they think there must be some trick. Perhaps Jesus wasn’t speaking entirely metaphorically In John 8:44.

I didn’t quote the verse there, but to save you all the trouble :

John text

Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. – John 8: 43-44, NIV.

He was replying to the Jews’ claims: “Abraham is our father”, and then, in the next breath, “Our only Father is God Himself.” These were not the Pharisees of the first part of the chapter, we are told, but specifically “the Jews who had believed Him”.

The link goes to the full chapter, which has such classic lines as: “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”

4 Likes

Steve Weinberg taught me General Relativity. Well, to be fair, me and a dozen other students. We used his textbook (Gravitation and Cosmology) instead of the more famous book by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. Weinberg’s approach was less geometrical and more algebraic. Though he’s not known for work in GR, he had a novel approach. Anyhow, he was a good teacher and gave his students individual attention.

I’d see him shopping at the Star Market near Fresh Pond once is a while so he must have lived near there.

This essay, based on a commencement address by Weinberg, gives advice that rang true to me (albeit long after I could use it).

7 Likes

When I met Peter Bien, Dartmouth professor, translator of Kazanzakis and influential Friend, in early 1991, I had just come from five months in Greece, spending from September of 1990 to mid-December in a study program in Chania, Crete, then another six weeks in Athens. My time in Crete gave me a special appreciation for Kazantzakis’ Report to Greco, his final work, which Peter translated. “Greco” for Kazantzakis was not only the painter, El Greco, but his Cretan grandfather, who like likely looked something like this fellow:
Nelly-Man-from-Sfakia-1939
Such men still walked the streets in my time on Crete, now it’s hard to find even a picture. Such men as Kazantzakis and the Cretan grandfathers of his time hardly are to be found on Earth today, the modern mind cannot even really grasp how they thought, let alone fought. Greco, though, as Kazantzakis meant him, was more than man. What did he mean? Here are some pieces from the beginning that try to tell. Kazatzakis was a man to be mourned, and there are few who won’t weep for Nikos and Helen.

2250 words from Report to Greco

REPORT TO GRECO

Nikos Kazantzakis

Translated by Peter A. Bien

INTRODUCTION:

THE WRITING OF “REPORT TO GRECO

by Helen N. Kazantzakis

NIKOS KAZANTZAKIS asked his God for ten additional years, ten additional years in which to complete his work—to say what he had to say and “empty himself.” He wanted death to come and take only a sackful of bones. Ten years were enough, or so he thought.

But Kazantzakis was not the kind who could be “emptied.” Far from feeling old and tired at the age of seventy-four, he considered himself rejuvenated, even after his final adventure, the tragic vaccination. Freiburg’s two great specialists, the hematologist Heilmeyer and the surgeon Kraus, concurred in this opinion.

The whole of the final month Professor Heilmeyer shouted triumphantly after each visit, “This man is healthy, I tell you! His blood has become as sound as my own!”

“Why do you run like that!” I kept scolding Nikos, afraid that he might slip on the terrazzo and break a bone.

“Don’t worry, Lénotska, I’ve got wings!” he answered. One sensed the confidence he had in his constitution and his soul, which refused to bite the dust.

Sometimes he sighed, “Oh, if only I could dictate to you!” Then, grasping a pencil, he would try to write with his left hand. “What’s the hurry? Who is chasing you? The worst is past. In a few days you’ll be able to write to your heart’s content.”

He would turn his head and gaze at me for a few moments in silence. Then, with a sigh: “I have so very much to say. I am being tormented again by three great themes, three new novels. But first I’ve got to finish Greco.”

“You’ll finish it, don’t worry.”
[…]
Now I remember another crucial moment in our lives, another hospital, this time in Paris. Nikos gravely ill again with a temperature of 104, the physicians all in a turmoil. Everyone had lost hope; only Kazantzakis himself remained unperturbed.

“Will you get a pencil, Lénotska? . . .”

Still plunged in his vision, he dictated to me in a broken voice the Franciscan haikai he placed in the saint’s mouth: “
I said to the almond tree,
‘Sister, speak to me of God.’
And the almond tree blossomed.

[…]
No, he did not manage to finish the Report to Greco in time; he was unable to write a second draft, as was his custom.
[…]
Alone, now, I re-experience the autumn twilight which descended ever so gently, like a small child, with the first chapter.

“Read, Lénotska, read and let me hear it!”

I collect my tools: sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing, intellect. Night has fallen, the day’s work is done. I return like a mole to my home, the ground. Not because I am tired and cannot work. I am not tired. But the sun has set. . . .

I could go no further; a lump had risen in my throat. This was the first time Nikos had spoken about death.

“Why do you write as though ready to die?” I cried, truly despondent.
And to myself: Why, today, has he accepted death?

“Don’t be alarmed, wife, I’m not going to die,” he answered without the slightest hesitation. “Didn’t we say I’d live another ten years? I need ten more years!” His voice was lower now. Extending his hand, he touched my knee. “Come now, read. Let’s see what I wrote.”

To me he denied it, but inwardly, perhaps, he knew. For that very same night he sealed this chapter in an envelope together with a letter for his friend Pantelís Prevelakis: “Helen could not read it; she began to cry. But it is good for her—and for me also—to begin to grow accustomed . . .”
[…]
His round, round eyes pitch black in the semidarkness and filling with tears, he used to say to me, “I feel like doing what Bergson says—going to the street corner and holding out my hand to start begging from the passers-by: ‘Alms, brothers! A quarter of an hour from each of you.’ Oh, for a little time, just enough to let me finish my work. Afterwards, let Charon come.”

Charon came—curse him!—and mowed Nikos down in the first flower of his youth! Yes, dear reader, do not laugh. For this was the time for all to flower and bear fruit, all he had begun, the man you so loved and who so loved you, your Nikos Kazantzakis.

—H.N.K.
Geneva, June 15,1961.

AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION

My Report to Greco is not an autobiography. […]

…this bloody track will be the only trace left by my passage on earth. Whatever I wrote or did was written or performed upon water, and has perished.

I call upon my memory to remember, I assemble my life from the air, place myself soldier-like before the general, and make my Report to Greco. For Greco is kneaded from the same Cretan soil as I, and is able to understand me better than all the strivers of past or present. Did he not leave the same red track upon the stones?

THREE KINDS OF SOULS, THREE PRAYERS:

1. I AM A BOW IN YOUR HANDS, LORD. DRAW ME, LEST I ROT.

2. DO NOT OVERDRAW ME, LORD. I SHALL BREAK.

3. OVERDRAW ME, LORD, AND WHO CARES IF I BREAK!

PROLOGUE

I COLLECT MY TOOLS: sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing, intellect. Night has fallen, the day’s work is done. I return like a mole to my home, the ground. Not because I am tired and cannot work. I am not tired. But the sun has set.

The sun has set, the hills are dim. The mountain ranges of my mind still retain a little light at their summits, but the sacred night is bearing down; it is rising from the earth, descending from the heavens. The light has vowed not to surrender, but it knows there is no salvation. It will not surrender, but it will expire.

I cast a final glance around me. To whom should I say farewell? To what should I say farewell? Mountains, the sea, the grape-laden trellis over my balcony? Virtue, sin? Refreshing water? . . . Futile, futile! All these will descend with me to the grave.

To whom should I confide my joys and sorrows—youth’s quixotic, mystic yearnings, the harsh clash later with God and men, and finally the savage pride of old age, which burns but refuses until the death to turn to ashes? To whom should I relate how many times I slipped and fell as I clambered on all fours up God’s rough, unaccommodating ascent, how many times I rose, covered with blood, and began once more to ascend? Where can I find an unyielding soul of myriad wounds like my own, a soul to hear my confession?

Compassionately, tranquilly, I squeeze a clod of Cretan soil in my palm. I have kept this soil with me always, during all my wanderings, pressing it in my palm at times of great anguish and receiving strength, great strength, as though from pressing the hand of a dearly loved friend. But now that the sun has set and the day’s work is done, what can I do with strength? I need it no longer. I hold this Cretan soil and squeeze it with ineffable joy, tenderness, and gratitude, as though in my hand I were squeezing the breast of a woman I loved and bidding it farewell. This soil I was everlastingly; this soil I shall be everlastingly. O fierce clay of Crete, the moment when you were twirled and fashioned into a man of struggle has slipped by as though in a single flash.

What struggle was in that handful of clay, what anguish, what pursuit of the invisible man-eating beast, what dangerous forces both celestial and satanic! It was kneaded with blood, sweat, and tears; it became mud, became a man, and began the ascent to reach—To reach what? It clambered pantingly up God’s dark bulk, extended its arms and groped, groped in an effort to find His face.

And when in these very last years this man sensed in his desperation that the dark bulk did not have a face, what new struggle, all impudence and terror, he underwent to hew this unwrought summit and give it a face — his own!

But now the day’s work is done; I collect my tools. Let other clods of soil come to continue the struggle. We mortals are the immortals’ work battalion. Our blood is red coral, and we build an island over the abyss. God is being built. I too have applied my tiny red pebble, a drop of blood, to give Him solidity lest He perish—so that He might give me solidity lest I perish. I have done my duty.

Farewell!

Extending my hand, I grasp earth’s latch to open the door and leave, but I hesitate on the luminous threshold just a little while longer. My eyes, my ears, my bowels find it difficult, terribly difficult, to tear themselves away from the world’s stones and grass. A man can tell himself he is satisfied and peaceful; he can say he has no more wants, that he has fulfilled his duty and is ready to leave. But the heart resists. Clutching the stones and grass, it implores, “Stay a little!”

I fight to console my heart, to reconcile it to declaring the Yes freely. We must leave the earth not like scourged, tearful slaves, but like kings who rise from table with no further wants, after having eaten and drunk to the full. The heart, however, still beats inside the chest and resists, crying, “Stay a little!”

Staying, I throw a final glance at the light; it too is resisting and wrestling, just like man’s heart. Clouds have covered the sky, a warm drizzle falls upon my lips, the earth is redolent. A sweet, seductive voice rises from the soil: “Come . . . come . . . come . . .”

The drizzle has thickened. The first night bird sighs; its pain, in the wetted air, tumbles down ever so sweetly from the benighted foliage. Peace, great sweetness. No one in the house . . . Outside, the thirsty meadows were drinking the first autumn rains with gratitude and mute well-being. The earth, like an infant, had lifted itself up toward the sky in order to suckle.

I closed my eyes and fell asleep, holding the clod of Cretan soil, as always, in my palm. I fell asleep and had a dream.
[…]

“Give me a command, beloved grandfather.”

Smiling, you placed your hand upon my head. It was not a hand, it was multicolored fire. The flame suffused my mind to the very roots.

“Reach what you can, my child.”

Your voice was grave and dark, as though issuing from the deep larynx of the earth.

It reached the roots of my mind, but my heart remained unshaken.

“Grandfather,” I called more loudly now, “give me a more difficult, more Cretan command.”

Hardly had I finished speaking when, all at once, a hissing flame cleaved the air. The indomitable ancestor with the thyme roots tangled in his locks vanished from my sight; a cry was left on Sinai’s peak, an upright cry full of command, and the air trembled:

“Reach what you cannot!”

I awoke with a terrified start. Day had already begun.
[…]

General, the battle draws to a close and I make my report. This is where and how I fought.
[…]
You will see my soul, will weigh it between your lanceolate eyebrows, and will judge. Do you remember the grave Cretan saying, “Return where you have failed, leave where you have succeeded”? If I failed, I shall return to the assault though but a single hour of life remains to me. If I succeeded, I shall open the earth so that I may come and recline at your side. Listen, therefore, to my report, general, and judge.

1

ANCESTORS

I LOOK DOWN into myself and shudder. On my father’s side my ancestors were bloodthirsty pirates on water, warrior chieftains on land, fearing neither God nor man; on my mother’s, drab, goodly peasants who bowed trustfully over the soil the entire day, sowed, waited with confidence for rain and sun, reaped, and in the evening seated themselves on the stone bench in front of their homes, folded their arms, and placed their hopes in God.

Fire and soil. How could I harmonize these two militant ancestors inside me?

I felt this was my duty, my sole duty: to reconcile the irreconcilables, to draw the thick ancestral darkness out of my loins and transform it, to the best of my ability, into light.

Is not God’s method the same? Do not we have a duty to apply this method, following in His footsteps? Our lifetime is a brief flash, but sufficient.

Without knowing it, the entire universe follows this method. Every living thing is a workshop where God, in hiding, processes and transubstantiates clay. This is why trees flower and fruit, why animals multiply, why the monkey managed to exceed its destiny and stand upright on its two feet. Now, for the first time since the world was made, man has been enabled to enter God’s workshop and labor with Him. The more flesh he transubstantiates into love, valor, and freedom, the more truly he becomes Son of God.

5 Likes


“To whom should I relate how many times I slipped and fell as I
clambered on all fours up God’s rough, unaccommodating ascent?” - Kazatzakis


“the summit I arbitrarily named the Cretan Glance” - Kazanzakis

3 Likes

It is indeed a good essay – with the kind of advice that most of us could have used at that age … but did not get.

Sadly, Weinberg went off the rails in his closing remarks:
After this, Christians and Jews either had to give up belief in the literal truth of the Bible or resign themselves to intellectual irrelevance.

Really? Cosmologists who assert that magically all the mass & energy in the Universe suddenly appeared from nothing in a volume much smaller than a pinhead and then even more magically suddenly inflated, driven by an unknown force – those guys are intellectually relevant?

My limited exposure to such matters is that the power of belief is just as strong in cosmologists as it is in devoutly religious people. Basically, “God did it” is not really different from the “spontaneous creation of the Universe by unknown forces” belief favored by those who (perhaps inappropriately) call themselves scientists.

Weinberg might have done a better job is he had not tried to throw stones from the glass house in which he was living. There is much that we do not know or understand – and a real scientist would never forget that.

5 Likes

To be fair, the context of this remark concerns the age of the Earth. Specifically, the sentence just before the one you quoted (the antecedent of “after this” in your quote) is

In this way, it removed the last scientific objection to what many geologists and paleontologists thought was the great age of the Earth and the Sun.

I think it’s fair to say that Young Earth creationists are skating on rather thin ice after a consistent theory and the overwhelming evidence for a very old Earth proceeded from an understanding of radioactivity, which is the work of Rutherford helped elucidate. This is the meaning of Weinberg’s allusion to the “literal” interpretation of the Bible, as this context makes clear. As Weinberg noted,

The understanding of radioactivity allowed physicists to explain how the Sun and Earth’s cores could still be hot after millions of years.

7 Likes

The only serious Young Earth creationist I have had opportunities to discuss this with seriously was … wait for it! … a geologist. A remarkably fine & effective geologist, by the way.

He had no problem talking about eras & epochs; in fact, he was better at it than many other geologists. His simple answer to the apparent conflict between his belief in a Young Earth and his daily use of an Old Earth paradigm was that the Young Earth looks old because that is the way God made it. Now, think of a way to prove that hypothesis wrong.

Weinberg’s unwarranted anti-religious remark was simply wrong. Young Earth believers see themselves as acknowledging a house built on the rock, not as being on thin ice. Weinberg’s remark was unworthy of a person who claims to be a scientist.

5 Likes

@Enon , I don’t understand the hostility to Jared Diamond. Yes he was trying to answer the same question Yali was. He explicitly says that, in Guns, Germs and Steel: some Melanesian native asks him, “How come we don’t have our OWN cargo?” I always had the impression the later hostility to his theory (that geology and native fauna had a lot to do with material and technological prosperity, to shrink it within an inch of its life) was due to the fact that it DOESN’T focus on blaming white or Western colonizers. It’s kinda the same reason the early 20th century Progs in the U.S. hated “social Darwinism”. Diamond is no Spencer, as his other books amply demonstrate, but any deviation from the orthodoxy is enough to incur obloquy. One isn’t allowed to speculate that there MAY be factors other than human oppression and exploitation which contribute to the glaringly obvious disparities in societal development. That is just…not done.

And @Gavin , your story about the geologist serenely maintaining,”the world looks old because that’s the way God made it”……When asked, what about the fossil record? (yeah true admittedly it’s isn’t MUCH of a “record”) some believers will say: God put those fossils there to confuse us, to test our faith in Him as Creator. Oh that Yahweh, He loves a clever jape! Recently I was wondering out loud why the early church woulda gone with the doctrine of the Trinity, when they were beset with polytheistic religions from whom they wanted to distinguish themselves. It’s a complicated difficult and counter-intuitive doctrine, 3 divine persons in 1. Of course the answer of the devout is: “Because it’s true!” Followed up by , how could we possibly expect that the nature of our Creator would be comprehensible to us lowly creatures? To which I say: why NOT? If God is all-powerful, and He created our intellectual capacity, He could certainly have expanded it so we could comprehend Him. IF we see through a glass darkly, He is the Great Glazier who installed the smoked glass. Why?

5 Likes

As it happens, I am in the process of reading “Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer, which centers around Darwin’s recognition that the Cambrian explosion in the number of types of fossils was a very serious challenge to his theory of evolution – a challenge which today’s Neo-Darwinists have swept under the carpet. A Young Earth believer might say that the Good Lord put them there as a challenge to us, to make us think.

Unfortunately, in his closing remark, Weinberg demonstrated the arrogance of over-confidence in his own beliefs, instead of humility in the face of the enormous amount that we do not understand – and the knowledge that much of what “Science” has thought over the years to be complete understanding has later turned out to be merely successively better approximations to a still-unknown truth.

4 Likes

Yes, I get that, the term “fossil record” is kinda an oxymoron. I have never seen why Creationism conflicts with science. One could simply say: God created the world, and this is HOW He did it. I think actually that’s what is taught in the seminaries.

As for why God would want to “challenge us, make us think”—
I reckon that’s a minor gear of the weary treadmill of the eternal Genesis conundrum: God knew what the outcome was going to be, so why did He create the serpent? Why didn’t He just transplant the Tree of Knowledge elsewhere? Don’t bother trying to figure it out: you are too stupid. And WHY am I too stupid? Cuz that’s the way God made you! And WHY did he make me so limited? We’re right back to: dont bother trying to figure that out, you’re too stupid to figger out why God wanted you stupid.

3 Likes

I hope this discussion does not conflate Darwin’s Doubt with young Earth creationism. Darwin’s Doubt is a rigorously scientific inquiry and convincingly demonstrates there is nothing in the fossil record which shows intermediate forms between species. Darwin, himself, said that if these were not found, his theory on the origin of new species - as opposed to small, incremental changes within species - would fall apart. It has, indeed fallen apart as Darwin’s Doubt makes scientifically clear. No evidence of intermediate forms/body plane have ever been found. Stephen C. Meyer has thoroughly debunked the religion of neo-Darwinism on strictly scientific terms having zero to do with creationism.

5 Likes

To be fair, Meyer does an excellent job of demonstrating that Neo-Darwinism – it’s all in gradual changes to the DNA – fails abysmally as a hypothesis. The science is NOT settled.

However, Meyer leans towards Intelligent Design as a more reasonable explanation. Which leads this reader to ask – Who designed the designer? The only reasonable approach for any of us to adopt is one of humility. There is so much we do not know.

3 Likes


Roy Blount wrote:

Nobody ought to wear a Greek fisherman’s cap who doesn’t meet two qualifications:
(1) He is Greek.
(2) He is a fisherman.

The same principle applies to Mennonite beards.

Jared Diamond got criticism from the cultural anthropologists and the left in general for insufficient political correctness, even heresy, by implying that Eurasians weren’t just devils responsible imbricated in the praxis of colonially oppressive thingy modes of discourse causing systematizing the ah, backwardn material deprivation of um, primitive savages natives traditional societies in the er, third Global South. That’s not my criticism at all.

He’s a cowardly phony who makes stuff up to appeal to the WEIRD elite. He knows the truth, that human advancement in Eurasia is due to a cultural-genetic virtuous feedback loop that took millennia; that human evolution, especially of intelligence and disposition, has been in overdrive in Eurasia because of cultural advancement (and vice-versa) ever since the neolithic, and that cannibal headhunters missed that boat a long, long time ago. I would argue that the cultural anthropologists and associated assorted fruits and nuts of the professoriat should have, too – they think the boat is racist and are busy drilling holes in the bottom. Diamond isn’t overtly part of that crowd, but he wants to be respected by them. He’s arguing that there is no boat, and anyway, the Aryans Indo-Europeans steppe peoples must have cut down all their own trees to make boats, and nobody else had any trees, and boats are a bad idea, anyway, and also they had cooties diseases, unlike Africa! Which also had no animals! Sigh.

Anyway I’m tired, hungry and grumpier even than usual after a day fighting bureaucracies, so I’ll just paste in some comments:

Jared Diamond Didn’t Used to be So Boring
Steve Sailer • January 3, 2005

… as far as I can tell, he only lectures, never debates. I’ve never heard of him ever allowing himself to be dragged into a debate. I met him after he gave a speech at Mike Milken’s big annual confab. We were chatting nicely until I asked him a tough question about what he didn’t mention in his Guns, Germs, and Steel — Wouldn’t different agricultural environments select for different hereditary traits in locals? — I went on to mention how James Q. Wilson’s The Marriage Problem has a couple of chapters on how tropical agriculture in West Africa affects family structures. And, thus, wouldn’t the kind of man that would have the most surviving children be different in an agricultural environment where he doesn’t need to work too much to support them than in an agricultural environment where he does?

Now, Diamond has spent a lot of time birdwatching in New Guinea, so he knows all about what tropical agriculture selects for. And he has no intention of touching that tar-baby with a ten-foot pole. So, he grabbed his stuff and literally dog-trotted at about 5 mph out of the auditorium!

Jared Diamond wasn’t always such a tedious phony. GC over at GNXP has uncovered an early Jared Diamond article [dead link] in prestigious Nature about a hilariously politically incorrect topic.

Malcolm Gladwell on Trial by Jury
Steve Sailer • February 5, 2005

Look, the reason I hammer Malcolm Gladwell and Jared Diamond so hard is because they aren’t invincibly ignorant. They are even a little bit courageous. They are people who like to prance up to the precipice of the truth and then dash away. They’ve made themselves rich by constructing politically correct rationales for stupider people to believe.

7 Likes

Now that is a glorious rant. And echoes, but far more pointedly, my own reaction to Jared Diamond.

4 Likes

The fossil record is very incomplete. Every time you find a fossil intermediate in time between two others of the same type, you replace one gap with two gaps. The genetic evidence pretty strongly supports the hypothesis of common descent. (Except fungi, maybe – I’m willing to believe that they’re space aliens that invaded after the carboniferous.) The dynamics of population genetics are very counterintuitive once you go back enough generations that the number of ancestors for an individual is much larger than the effective population size, which is often only about 15 generations. Artificial selection works, so natural and sexual selection have to work, too – up to a point. There’s a lot in neo-Darwinism, as in all academic beliefs, that I find questionable.

Why do so many species stay the same for tens or even hundreds of millions of years? What about horizontal gene transfer - endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are a noticeable proportion of most animal species, and that’s not the only means of transmission. Why does speciation occur so rapidly when it does occur? (I think this one may be solvable. You need a small, isolated population for speciation to occur. This also would go a fair way towards explaining why intermediate forms are rarely attested. Speciation may also have more to do with throwing off co-evolved parasites than anything else – IIRC Margoulis had something about that in the early '90s.) If non-living matter could give rise to the first life, why hasn’t that happened many times? Why are evolutionary biologists generally ignorant of genetics, both classical and modern? Why do they persist in making up “just-so” stories? Wilder hypotheses: we know materialism is wrong (where are mathematical concepts? how much do they weigh?) maybe there really are spirits, even gods directing evolution, even creating de novo. Even wilder, why are some of the most dogmatic pseudo-skeptic Darwinists also the most likely to entertain the simulation hypothesis, which, if true, would falsify their scientistic arguments and beliefs?

Genetic load, archaic admixture

Why doesn’t genetic load (mildly deleterious mutations) always overwhelm adaptive mutations? (It often does, though, e.g. today’s Pygmies, who over nearly all human history had the largest effective population size and more natural selection than people of the past century. They, along with Bushmen, also have by far the most genetic diversity, which almost definitionally means the most genetic load. (Ironically, given their own archaic hominin admixture (see study below) and being oppressed by colonialism, their Bantu neighbors often treat Pygmies as semi-simian livestock.) It may be that small population sizes help throw off genetic load – a greater proportion of a populations’ slightly-bad genes are likely to end up in an individual, collectively bad enough that that individual has no descendants, benefiting the small population to a greater extent than a large one.)

Whole-genome sequence analysis of a Pan African set of samples reveals archaic gene flow from an extinct basal population of modern humans into sub-Saharan populations Genome Biology, 2019

13059_2019_1684_Fig3_HTML


Tested demographic models. Left figures: topology of the demographic models for ABC-DL analyses considering East Asian (EAs), European (Eu), western sub-Saharan (WAf), Mbuti Pygmy (Mbt), and Khoisan (Kho) anatomically modern humans, Altai Neanderthal (N), Neanderthal-like population (NI) with introgressed DNA present in Eurasian populations, Denisova (D), Denisovan-like population (NI) with introgressed DNA present in East Asian populations, an archaic ghost population (Xe) that has left their footprint into Denisovan genome, a putative African extinct basal branch population (XAf), and a second putative archaic ghost population Neanderthal-like (Xn). In all models, recent migrations described in the text are allowed, but not shown in the figure to ease visualization. The posterior probability obtained with our ABC-DL approach is shown for each model; right figure: fitted B model.

3 Likes

Darwin’s Doubt deals at length with especially, those genes which determine of body form. They have been studied extensively. The salient point is that it has been repeatedly shown that even small mutation in these genes, in many species, are almost always lethal - that even small mutations in genes which determine overall body architecture or form - cannot result in new species when no individuals survive.

2 Likes

Darwin’s Doubt” does indeed build a rather powerful case that Neo-Darwinism is scientifically unsupportable. Meyer demonstrates that – even if gene mutations in the key body shape genes were not usually fatal – the rate at which they occur is orders-of-magnitude too slow to explain evolution. The math simply does not work.

Lots of fascinating observations in that book. One that caught my attention was the experiments on removing DNA from the eggs of those poor fruit flies – the embryo manages about 400 cell divisions before it runs into trouble. It seems that a lot more than DNA is involved in growth.

Then there is the point that the apparent pattern of evolution in fossils following the Cambrian Explosion is the reverse of that predicted by Darwin’s natural selection model. Houston, we have a problem!

Prof. Denis Noble – one of those wonderful old English academics – has made similar points to Meyer in a number of books and videos.

Of course, none of this explains the Cambrian Explosion. Darwin was right to have his doubts. We should be humble in the face of our still vast ignorance.

3 Likes

That isn’t evidence against (90%+) common descent within “humans” or chimps / bonobos. (Bushmen differ more genetically from Australian Aborigines than chimpanzees do from bonobos, which are nominally different species though admittedly it’s hard to tell whether fst numbers in different papers are truly comparable.) The similarities in DNA between different species allow inferring a phylogenetic tree of relatedness. That certain basic genes are conserved from insects to mammals isn’t evidence against common descent, but for it. That some basic genes hardly ever have non-fatal mutations is an argument only against speciation by random processes (and not even an airtight one) – the interesting thing here is that we have overwhelmingly massive DNA evidence that speciation does occur from previous species, but also very strong evidence that speciation cannot be “random” as we currently (mis)understand the word, it shows evidence of intentional design, even engineering.

My own theory of how this could occur involves

lots of scary jargon

combining panpsychism with the implications for information-thermodynamics of Carver Mead’s collective electrodynamics (related to Cramer’s transactional interpretation of QM) to give a basis for Sheldrake’s morphic resonance and a “unified theory of woo”

why particles must be, like, conscious
  • Distinguishable states must differ by >=1 bit. This is visualized with “the trouser legs of time” (as Terry Pratchett put it, call it a “cobordism” is you want to be obscure) - there is one thing going in, the waist, and two things coming out, the legs. There is one state going into the vertex of the Feynman diagram, say an incoming wave, and two different mutually exclusive possible states coming out, say the wave-paths through each slit of a two-slit interference experiment. The vertex itself represents an interaction, a particle interaction.

  • No outside agency besides the 2 minimally differing states can do the distinguishing between themselves. (The crotch of the pants, the vertex, is the only thing that separates the legs from each other.)

  • Otherwise the theory would have to explain how the 3rd thing distinguishes not only the 2 original entities from each other but also how it distinguishes itself from the other two as well, leading to an infinite regress. (Which is the “solution” Feynman’s QED goes with. Think something like Cthulhu’s fractal trousers, but worse.)

  • This requisite ability to distinguish is logically part of every distinguishable entity.

  • This logical nature, this ability to distinguish information, is not just the basis for consciousness but a basic form of consciousness itself.

(See: Mindspace & Minds' Basis: Outline of Relation of Quantum Mechanics and Information Theory) and Mindspace & Minds' Basis: How Big Is a Photon? The Conceptual Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

Heat is information spreading the record of the universe everywhere / when

Mindspace & Minds' Basis: A First Approximation to Mindspace

Mindspace & Minds' Basis: Thermodynamics, Information and the Afterlife

Mindspace & Minds' Basis: Compression, Entanglement and a Possible Basis for Morphic Fields

3 Likes