1. Brain That Changes Itself: into the abyss

Comment #220669 by GoodLittleAtheist on July 28, 2008 at 8:38 pm

I bought the book this summer. It is fascinating. I highly recommend it.

Gems, et al.

I can't find my copy at the moment, so I will have to rely on my memory (which is poor), and I am also speculating a bit so take it with a grain of salt. But what I inferred from the book is that the vestibular system was damaged but that they don't really know which parts were/are damaged. So it is possible that part of the system in the ear IS still functioning but the system overall has massive defects. By training the brain to use input from the tongue, the brain is rewiring itself so it 'knows' how to route stimuli through new undamaged pathways to the part of the brain that processes orientation, etc. When the tongue stimulus is removed, the parts of the vestibular system that survived the damaging episode can now use this new pathway. (Or maybe it was using the tongue to tie visual stimula into the system. I can't remember, but I guess all they'd have to do is have her close her eyes and see if she falls down.) Probably what is happening with effect lasting a bit longer after every training, is that the old pathway, though damaged, is well-worn as the main highway for these signals. The brain prefers to use that pathway. The training builds up a new path, but at first it is just a small road in comparison. The more training is done, the more well-worn the path becomes, until eventually it becomes so well-worn (and the damaged path so weeded up from disuse) that it becomes the new highway for these signals.

Like I said, grain of salt. But I think a lot of this stuff is in its infancy anyway, and it seems like the interpretations involve a lot of speculating, so why can't I? :)

2. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212378 by GoodLittleAtheist on July 17, 2008 at 5:59 am

Oh, I think so. Without proving evolution by natural selection means we're left pretty much nowhere.

I must state first that I am not an expert in biology. Quite. :) However, I'll warrant that you don't need a century of thorough experimentation to prove plain old evolution. Everybody can accept evolution. Everybody understands evolution as a non-contextual concept and can name any non-biological example.

Put in short- everything evolves.

A fact. As you said.

Given my aforementioned limited understanding of biology in general, I nonetheless feel confident in saying that "Darwinism" (in its clearest sense) implies biological evolution, devoid of sociological interpretation.

DalaiDrivel,

When I said, I don't know, I meant I didn't know if Dawkins said it the way you had paraphrased. I've never heard him say "Evolution by natural selection" is a fact. I also don't think that is correct. (I have heard him say Evolution is a fact and natural selection is theory that explains it.)

When I said Evolution is a fact, I meant biological evolution, not a watered down statement for anything changing. The traits in biological populations change over time. That has been observed in the fossil record and in genetic studies and is a fact, the same way that it is a fact that I am typing on a keyboard. Evolution by natural selection is a theory that explains how it works. It is a theory backed by tremendous evidence. Yes. It makes predictions that can be verified or falsified. Yes. But it could be falsified with new evidence tomorrow or a new theory could come along that explains what we observe better. I'm not holding my breath for that, but we should never dismiss the possibility.

3. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212207 by GoodLittleAtheist on July 16, 2008 at 8:07 pm

So they convince themselves that, being an ism, it can be refuted, argued against, outright rejected if they wish... without one ever realising that, far from being debatable, the essence of Darwinism, evolution by natural selection, is a fact, as RD once said, like a table being a table, and not anything else, is a fact.

I don't think so. Evolution is a fact. Evolution by natural selection is a theory.

I thought the 'Darwinian', ism, etc. tagged onto everything was just an historical artifact. They used to have to make it clear they were talking about Darwin's theory and not Lamarck's?