nexus II

i think the interesting point with the argument "institutional vs conspiracy type analysis" is that collins is precisely not galileo, but rather a contemporary of his pointing the wrong, namely the way of possible reconciliation. it will also always be NC rather than him who will be at the receiving end of nasty stick from officialdom. evil people analysis does not hurt anyone. bad ideas analysis is quite rightly deemed dangerous to the dominant system of values (although the refutation of conspiracy T is not by NC incidentially, if written in defense of him and against someone like our dear collins). the whole concept of a "mysterious investigations" magazine just strikes me as ludicrous- there are no "ends" which are of such importance to us- as you quite rightly say, anyone could read this without seeing their position challenged. there's no critical stance, or indeed any stance- it's just white noise.

the reconciliation job brings me to nexus II, the interventionism "thing". of course darwinian theory requires paradigmatic change within the frame (crichton's second paradigm is pretty much dead, raising questions around the viability of genetic modification!) although our dear mr. pye deems these problems of internal incoherence an opening for cosmological speculation, his "you know what" leaving the path open to reconciliation with any of the "you know whos" he's seemingly working in partnership with, including the creationists, who's successful lobbying work have exposed the u.s. intellectual culture to much ridicule around the world.

"Plants and animals evolve, eh? Alright, how do they evolve?

By gradual but constant changes, influenced by adaptive pressures in their environment that cause physical modifications to persist if they are advantageous."

[language! jesus h. christ!] its actually specifically the "gradual change" bit thats under heavy fire. the other half is, of course, mutation and dominance of emergent gene.

"Really? But wouldn't the overall population have a gene pool deep enough to absorb and dilute even a large change? Wouldn't a small change rapidly disappear?

Well, yes, it probably would. But not in an isolated segment of the overall population. An isolated group would have a much shallower gene pool, so positive mutations would stand a much better chance of establishing a permanent place in it.

Really? What if that positive mutation gets established in the isolated group, then somehow the isolated group gets back together with the main population? Poof! The mutation will be absorbed and disappear."

well dear pye, with genes, nothing "disappears". the interesting point with his later bits on "genetically identical cheetahs" and the (overdue) refutation of paradigm II (due to industrial interests!) is that RNA reproduction in the protein replicators are an additional source of reproductive specifics.

"Future editions of Icons of Evolution will discuss the current era when scientists ridiculed, ignored or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals and humans. You Know What has left traces of their handiwork all over our bodies, all through our gene pools. All that will be required for the truth to come out is for a few "insiders" to break ranks with their brainwashed peers."