I listened live and you were excellent! It’s also a nice change to hear a bright young woman talking about these issues instead of only us white-haired old men
Keep up the great work and much success with the book!
Also listened live. Very fine work Sheril! I wish they would’ve given you another segment. Have been keeping up with the mini-dustup in blogosphere re: the “new atheists”. As an atheist/skeptic/agnostic/nontheist/undeist, may I say I’m glad that particular subject did not come up, and consider it a non-issue. Forget it and just keep spreading the real good word; the pursuit of factual, empirical knowledge of our world and ourselves.
Given what many people are recognizing now as human-induced global challenges that are looming ominously before the human family, it appears experts with understanding and knowledge of such formidable and pressing circumstances as could soon be confronted by the human community have what feels to me like a “duty to warn.” Those possessed of clear vision, coherence of mind, intellectual honesty and moral courage are called upon to speak out loudly, clearly and often so as to make yourselves heard around the world.
I was in the live Second Life audience. Alas, Ira only rarely reads questions that come in from Second Life any more. I think part of the problem is that the staffer (usually Flora? It used to be) who runs the Ira Flatley avatar has a computer with “issues” — doesn’t seem to be able to stay in for more than 10 minutes without crashing. (I’d love to get out to their studios and take a look at their hardware and setup to see if I could figure out how to make it better!)
Scientists are fine communicators. It is the non-scientists, the atheists and the religious fanatics who cannot communicate except with others with the same congenital deficiencies. Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins are such types. Neither has ever contributed a scintilla to our understanding of the only question which has ever been at stake – the mechanism of a long ago terminated organic evolution. The polarization that exists between the religious fundamentalists and the equally rabid atheist Darwinians has paralyzed the public understanding of the great mystery of phylogeny. Neither camp will ever prevail because they are both dead wrong.
The truth lies elsewhere and I believe that I and my sources know where that is. It is in a planned ascending sequence in which chance played (past tense) virtually no role. All available evidence favors a process now complete with the contemporary biota which, like all those which preceeded it, will also become extinct. Just as ontogeny terminates with the death of the individual, so phylogeny also terminates with the extinction of its products. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny as each is part of the same reproductive continuum of which there may have been more than one.
“Aren’t our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71
[...] approaches, giving examples (hey – this little blog even gets a mention!), and encouraging more. Sheril was on NPR’s Science Friday today for 17 minutes or so, talking with Ira Flatow about the [...]
Sheril – finally listened to the podcasted segment. Excellent job. I think the challenge of science communication would be solved if we could just clone you.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I listened live and you were excellent! It’s also a nice change to hear a bright young woman talking about these issues instead of only us white-haired old men
Keep up the great work and much success with the book!
August 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Great interview
August 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I listened too, and I found the interview informative, articulate, and interesting. Ira Flatow was good too.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Whoo Science Friday! That’s the big time for science writers, isn’t it?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Also listened live. Very fine work Sheril! I wish they would’ve given you another segment. Have been keeping up with the mini-dustup in blogosphere re: the “new atheists”. As an atheist/skeptic/agnostic/nontheist/undeist, may I say I’m glad that particular subject did not come up, and consider it a non-issue. Forget it and just keep spreading the real good word; the pursuit of factual, empirical knowledge of our world and ourselves.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Given what many people are recognizing now as human-induced global challenges that are looming ominously before the human family, it appears experts with understanding and knowledge of such formidable and pressing circumstances as could soon be confronted by the human community have what feels to me like a “duty to warn.” Those possessed of clear vision, coherence of mind, intellectual honesty and moral courage are called upon to speak out loudly, clearly and often so as to make yourselves heard around the world.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
I was in the live Second Life audience. Alas, Ira only rarely reads questions that come in from Second Life any more. I think part of the problem is that the staffer (usually Flora? It used to be) who runs the Ira Flatley avatar has a computer with “issues” — doesn’t seem to be able to stay in for more than 10 minutes without crashing. (I’d love to get out to their studios and take a look at their hardware and setup to see if I could figure out how to make it better!)
You had several fans in the audience.
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 am
Scientists are fine communicators. It is the non-scientists, the atheists and the religious fanatics who cannot communicate except with others with the same congenital deficiencies. Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins are such types. Neither has ever contributed a scintilla to our understanding of the only question which has ever been at stake – the mechanism of a long ago terminated organic evolution. The polarization that exists between the religious fundamentalists and the equally rabid atheist Darwinians has paralyzed the public understanding of the great mystery of phylogeny. Neither camp will ever prevail because they are both dead wrong.
The truth lies elsewhere and I believe that I and my sources know where that is. It is in a planned ascending sequence in which chance played (past tense) virtually no role. All available evidence favors a process now complete with the contemporary biota which, like all those which preceeded it, will also become extinct. Just as ontogeny terminates with the death of the individual, so phylogeny also terminates with the extinction of its products. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny as each is part of the same reproductive continuum of which there may have been more than one.
“Aren’t our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71
I answer yes!
August 24th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
[...] approaches, giving examples (hey – this little blog even gets a mention!), and encouraging more. Sheril was on NPR’s Science Friday today for 17 minutes or so, talking with Ira Flatow about the [...]
August 27th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Sheril – finally listened to the podcasted segment. Excellent job. I think the challenge of science communication would be solved if we could just clone you.