>>No, this is what you “said”: “In related news from an equally reliable source:”<<
Yes, as opposed to people who purposely misread my post.
>>You continually assert that because someone disagrees with your viewpoint that they don’t understand science. Well, something has to be able to undermine TToE or it is not science, by definition. <<
That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about falsifiability?
>>On top of that, it was a comment that was made by the researcher/author during the interview which seems to undermine TToE(but a just-so story comes to the “rescue” in a comment following it), not a comment made by the article’s author. <<
Yes, a child psychologist can undermine a 200 year old bedrock of physical science.
>>The undermining comment being “It’s related to one of the basic things that came out of our research: Why do children exist at all? It doesn’t make tremendous evolutionary sense to have these creatures that can’t even keep themselves alive and require an enormous investment of time on the part of adults. That period of dependence is longer for us than it is for any other species, and historically that period has become longer and longer. <<
How silly is that comment. The progression of lengthening childhood is a sociological phenomenon, not a physical one. The fact we have seen it in a few hundred years — faster than a blink of an eye in terms of evolution — means that it has nothing to do with evolution at all. As I said, anyone with the tiniest passing knowledge of science should be able to come to this conclusion. I guess someone had to help connect the dots.
You mean the sterling post citing Batboy. Get a life.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about falsifiability?
Well, howdy. You said it made no sense. You just fell into the hole?
Yes, a child psychologist can undermine a 200 year old bedrock of physical science.
Do you know the difference between physical science and biological science?
How silly is that comment.
Well, now you seem to be getting the drift of the thread. That silly comment was made by Gopnik who later made this statement. "The evolutionary answer seems to be that there is a tradeoff between the ability to learn and imagine — which is our great evolutionary advantage as a species — and our ability to apply what we’ve learned and put it to use."
So you evidently agree with the Logan Gage, "Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying "Evolution." Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.".