The masses comment on the Wolfe review

Nick Cohen’s advice to authors includes this gem: “Never read the comments.” And I nearly always follow that dictum, except for the comments on this site.  I also made an exception for my review of Tom Wolfe’s book in the Washington Post. I wanted to see how people reacted to my defense of evolution, realizing that 40% of Americans are pure young-earth creationists and another 31% theistic evolutionists.

And the Post comments demonstrated that amply—and heartbreakingly. Evolution is so well established as a scientific “fact,” and there are mountains of evidence supporting it! Yet resistance to it is everywhere. Further, the ideas of modern evolutionary theory are not hard to understand. Despite that, people either don’t understand it, make no effort to, or simply parrot arguments they took from creationists and IDers. So much ignorance, and so little time! The comments about evolution that amused me the most were the constant assertions that we don’t know anything about speciation—even though Allen Orr and I wrote a big technical book on that subject (Speciation; Sinauer 2004) showing that we understand quite a lot about the process.

I’m omitting nice comments about me as well as good comments defending evolution (I noticed some readers here making them), and present the ones showing both an ignorance of evolution and a hatred of Professor Ceiling Cat. I’ll just display the ignorant comments and a few of the nasty ones.


Whoever Ajax Martin is, he’s all over the comments parading his anti-evolutionism (people have responded to him, and you can see the pushback at the site. I’ll leave it to the readers to rebut, at least mentally, this first one.

Screen Shot 2016-09-02 at 3.42.01 PM

This one shows a profound ignorance of how we establish that something in the past as provisionally true:

Screen Shot 2016-09-02 at 3.42.52 PM

Here we see the same misconception as demonstrated above. Seriously, “nothing historical is factual?” Didn’t JFK get assassinated in 1963? Is that story telling? Didn’t the World Trade Centers topple after being hit by a plane? Fairy tale (well, to some denialists)?

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 9.13.23 AM

This guy dominic has nothing by way of evidence, so he just attacks Darwin because he’s “the secularists’s God”:
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 10.05.41 AM

Nobody ever said all of evolution can be completely explained by natural selection, for there are processes like genetic drift, that probably have a profound effect on the evolution of DNA sequences. And no, you can’t ignore evolution in the “causal mechanisms” in genetics, because the behavior and assortment of genes and chromosomes evolved by natural selection. Why are there complex DNA-repair mechanisms? Why do we have the complex process of meiosis involved in sex? Why are paternal and material chromosomes differentially imprinted? These are evolutionary questions, but Callicles can’t be arsed to think.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 10.11.12 AM

Ahhh. . . here’s the old ID trope: if we don’t yet have a fully-worked out understanding or scenario of how a complex molecule evolved, evolution couldn’t have done it. It’s the prime fallacy of Intelligent Design, and I think it should have a name. Oh, right—the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 10.15.17 AM

The person below needs to read Why Evolution is True. I am baffled how people can disregard the evidence as “theot581 does”, and claim that it’s “mountains of cow dung.” Does he think that all biologists, including religious ones like Francis Collins and Ken Miller are idiots who have been bamboozled into accepting cow dung? And this person, like many others in the thread, tries to draw a phony distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” There’s no hard and fast line there, and, of course, there’s plenty of evidence for extreme macroevolution, both in the fossil record (Tiktaalik, mammal-like reptiles, the progression of forms from artiodactyls to whales) and in the vestigial features that show common ancestry between, say, humans and fish, or humans and reptiles.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 10.16.15 AM

Here are just three NASTY COMMENTS.  (There are more; I can haz Patreon now?) I wanted to find the best one, in which an irate reader called me a “child-man who uses the word ‘noms’ on his blog and posts about cowboy boots and cats”, but it eluded me. (If you find it, screenshot it and send it to me.)

These don’t bother me a bit: when people resort to name-calling, they got nothing. It just demonstrates their ignorance and incivility.

Screen Shot 2016-09-02 at 9.27.18 AM
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 9.10.41 AM

And I’ll add one FUNNY COMMENT—not about me but about Tom Wolfe. Do you get it?Funny


  1. Steve Zeoli
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    It is funny that someone would claim that you are nothing, Jerry, then bother to respond to what you wrote. Clearly a lot more than nothing and a threat to the creationists’ myth worshiping.

    • Taz
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      How many “already forgotten non-entities” get tombs with iron doors?

    • Posted September 3, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

      To me, Wolfe is the “already forgotten non-entity”. If not for Prof. Coyne’s site, I’d never heard of him. Belonging to a small nation with obscure language had cultural advantages. It filters the dung that pollutes the ocean of English speech, because for every thing that penetrates our language space, someone has to invest time (and often money) to translate. Tom Wolfe, Ina May Gaskin, Reza Aslan, Tariq Ramadan are totally unknown in my country. Deepak Chopra barely broke through.

  2. Merilee
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    No, I don’t get the Labor Day joke???

    • Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      It is not fashionable to wear white after labor day.

      • jrhs
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

        🙂 +1, I am fashion blind.

        (I simply feel like to start my comment with a smiley after reading this post.).

      • Filippo
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        I wonder if Wolfe wears black pajamas.

      • Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

        I know this used to be a rule eons ago along with white pumps before Labor Day and no Black Patent Leather until after. But, I’m under the impression that almost anything goes and has for many, many years. Flannel pajama bottoms? OK. Leggings? OK. Out-sized clothes? OK. Too tight or too short clothes? OK. What fashion sense?!

    • Stephen Barnard
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      White shoes.

      • Filippo
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        Does he ever sport a pink carnation?

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      … and you can’t pay attention to him again until after Memorial Day (when a white ensemble once again can be considered comme il faut).

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

        You all with your northern hemisphere privilege! Bring on the white clothes I say!😀

  3. Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    I have this unspoken mechanism that kicks in when I make a comment on any public forum, I ask myself a series of questions: Do I know enough about the subject to comment? Am I in any way misrepresenting the issues at hand? and Will my contribution add value to the debate? Usually I don’t end up commenting at all. Almost all of the commentators you’ve screencapped should ask themselves the same questions. Why don’t they? There’s a serious failing in the education system somewhere that needs to be addressed. Sad to say.

    • bluemaas
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      Nearly your same queries for me, Mr Hatton too, afore commenting. Like if m’answers, respectively, are yes, no, yes, then I may have some sort of a license to do more than listening.

      Speaking & writing is of that which I already know. Listening to others is of that which I may learn. Like, for me, to remain with those queries’ self – discipline as: stfu.\


    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      There’s a serious failing in the education system somewhere that needs to be addressed.

      The question occurs, what proportion of such commentators are actually products of the home “education” system? (Though one of them, “medogsbstfriend” uses British iconography, which makes it less unlikely that they’re “home-schooled”.)

    • Taz
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      I’ll add one more: do I really care that “someone is wrong on the internet”?

      (Thanks to XKCD)

    • Larry LeClair
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

      It often shows a fine command of the language to say nothing.

    • Richard
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 4:22 am | Permalink

      I think it’s the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

  4. George
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Jerry is being modest. He has not posted this tweet. I would pin it to the top of the web site. And it comes from a verified Twitter account.

    • Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

      Yes, that’s Joyce, and of course I’m pleased. She and I share a love of literature and of Bengal cats (she got one a year ago from Anthony Hutcherson). We all met when we were on Team Cat at the Great New Yorker Cats vs. Dogs debate, which we lost because of cheating by the Dog People (what do you expect?)

      • serendipitydawg
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

        Shame on you, Jerry, for this blatent ad caninem attack on the side that erroneously won.

    • docbill1351
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      I thought Wolfe died years ago but maybe that was just his relevancy.

      • Filippo
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

        How does one determine whether someone or something is “relevant”? Is there some pop culture sage (Faith Popcorn in years past? A NY Times reporter/editor?) who makes this determination? Is it what “most people would do”? (And how does one determine that?)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      J.C. Oates is a writing machine, man, churning out books — high-quality, well-written books — faster than most other people can read them. She’s written some great novels (Because It Is Bitter, and Because It Is My Heart and We Were the Mulvaneys come to mind), but my favorite of hers is a slender memoir regarding her appreciation for the pugilistic arts, On Boxing.

  5. Gareth
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    WTF is ‘Anglo-Saxon biology’?

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

      A desperate cry for help?

    • jeremy pereira
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      Don’t know, but it’s made of straw.

    • JonLynnHarvey
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      There’s a recent article on “Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration” in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology.

      I don’t think that’s what the poster had in mind.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

        You don’t have to tell the Cherokee or the Iroquois or the Mohicans about the perils of mass Anglo-Saxon migration …

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

        Is this about the migration of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc to Britain in mid-first millennium CE? I’d be very interested in reading that if there’s a free link.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted September 3, 2016 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

          I always thought that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes would be a good name for a folk band.

          • Filippo
            Posted September 3, 2016 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

            “Angles and Saxons and Jutes, Oh My!”

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted September 3, 2016 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

            If it weren’t for the Norman conquest, those people would still be working on a sequel to Beowulf and drinking red wine with Dover sole.

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted September 3, 2016 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

              I guess the end of Beowulf leaves open the possibility of a sew us with the hint of war to come.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

      A dog-whistle for “white people only”?

      • Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

        Don’t modern Anglo-Saxons include a lot of black people?

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

          Well, counting my Irish 25% (yay! third passport!) and either 8% or 4% depending on the generation in which the “Caribbean” gentleman in Gramp’s photo album appeared … yes.
          Quoth Borat (or some such), “Is it cos I is black?”
          IIRC, there’s some Portuguese in the similarly distant past too. Don’t know any more though, and anyone who did know has been dead for decades.

          • rickflick
            Posted September 4, 2016 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

            Send me a sample of your hair and $30, and I’ll tell you which of your ancestors was hung by the neck until dead as a cattle rustler in New Mexico in 1885.

            • gravelinspector-Aidan
              Posted September 5, 2016 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

              I think that everyone is present and accounted for on this side of the pond since then.
              I’m trying to envisage why a state would have DNA profiles for lynching victims from that long ago.

              • rickflick
                Posted September 5, 2016 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

                We do exhumations when necessary.

    • Kiwi Dave
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

      Grendel, his mum and the dragon are some examples of Anglo-Saxon biology.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

        Ha! Good one!

    • Paul D.
      Posted September 5, 2016 at 7:07 am | Permalink

      I think it’s in the same deplorable category as “jewish physics”.

  6. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    This is what happens when people get too busy with their lives actually doing things. Idiots with nothing better to do than feel self-righteous about their belief in their One True Imaginary Monster wind up being the only ones willing to run for school board, destroy the public school system, and leaving way too many kids to the tender mercies of faith schools.

  7. Marilyn
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    I agree that it’s disturbing to see so many people deny evolution. I’m beginning to think this stems from their fear that there is no god. I have family members and friends who can’t accept the fact that man is not “special” or “chosen” to be favored by some all powerful deity. I try to have patience with some of them because I know I didn’t become an athiest overnight. I went through stages of acceptance. The main thing I did to help was continue to ask hard questions and read everything I could to answer this questions.

  8. Karen Fierman
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    NPR listeners were outraged by Scott Simon’s interview with Wolfe. The NPR mailbox was spilling over with negative comments. One listener likened Wolfe’s book to having an evolutionary biologist hold forth on how to write a novel.

    • Les
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      Hopefully, both NPR and the NY Times can be persuaded to do a second review by someone like Prof Coyne.
      At a minimum, the unqualified reviewers should have bothered to ask someone in the field to verify assertions in the book.

      • jack1951
        Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        I just read the review of Wolfe’s book in the print edition of today’s NYT. It was dreadful. The reviewer seemed to be as ignorant and arrogant as Wolfe. Like Wolfe, the reviewer counts on style to triumph over substance. And the editor of the NYT Book Review doesn’t notice or care. NPR’s Simon is equally inept. His specialty is the suck-up interview. I heard it live and was appalled, yet again, but not surprised.

  9. Randall Schenck
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    What is shown here in these comments confirms one very important piece of evolution. Some of us have a long way to go.

    • Scientifik
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      Although there’s genetic component to intelligence, I wouldn’t discount the inadequate education and religious brainwashing these commenters were evidently subjected to.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

        Certainly we cannot discount either of these.

  10. Les
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Thank Ceiling Cat for the Washington Post actually having someone(Coyne) who knew about the subject and could evaluate its assertions review this book.

    Am I the only one astonished that NPR and the New York Times did not.
    The New York Times has folks like Carl Zimmer, Natalie Angier, George Johnson… that could have been at least consulted.

    Someone should suggest that the NY Times Science section post a review.

  11. Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    On occasion people on twitter attack me for posting Jerry’s thoughts. My policy is to send them a tweet about ad hom not being acceptable and to suggest they apologize. Sans apology, I block them.

    Interestingly, it’s not Jerry’s evolution posts that have evoked nastiness from tweeps, but his thoughts on free speech.

    But then, I think the Christians just unfollow me. I use an app that monitors who unfollows. A few days ago, someone who described himself as Christian in his bio dropped me soon after I’d shared Jerry’s Wolfe critique.

    (The after Labor Day joke made me laugh.)

  12. George
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Apparently, medogsbstfrnd does not know that Thomas Wolfe and Tom Wolfe are different people. He also thinks Lynn Margulis is distinguished. While she was ignored for her early work before it was eventually recognized, being an HIV/AIDS denier and a 9/11 truther sort of puts you in the not so distinguished category.

    • bric
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

      Also nostalgic seeing that flagellum getting another spin

    • Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

      As a female biology teacher, I have a soft spot for female scientists. I was delighted when I found that Okazaki (first name Tsuneko) is female, and I included her photo in a slide introducing Okazaki fragments. And of course I admired Lynn Margulis. Alas, no longer.

  13. Posted September 3, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    I want to acknowledge what a pleasure it is to be a part of this group. Not only are we fortunate to be privy to Prof Coyne’s insights, we also share a sense of community!

  14. Nell Whiteside
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    The irony is that the ‘masses’ deny evolutionary theory for which there is huge evidence and accept the garbled and non-sensical stories about g*d, jesus and the rest – for which there is virtually no evidence.

    To put it politely, they’re just bloody stoopid!

  15. Frank Bath
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Alas there was a favourable reaction to Tom Wolfe’s new book in this weekend’s Financial Times. I forget the ignoramus’s name that came with the column. I hope someone could pick up and write to the letters page.

  16. HNcroatia
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys? Checkmate Darwin! Checkmate scientists!

    It is really sad to see that 40-45% of US population believe that the universe is less than 10 000 years old, but even more than 40%-45% of US population deny evolution, because there are plenty ‘Old Earth Creationists’, “ID proponents” etc, etc. Even ‘plenty’ of quite popular ‘Christian apologists’ deny evolution/ do not believe in evolution.

    The main reason why people deny evolution, why some religious people deny evolution is because they think that evolution and the Bible/or Quran or whatever are incompatible. What is amazing to me is that the very same people who do not believe in evolution because of religion (and virtually everyone who does not believe in evolution has a religious agenda behind it) how the very same people have premarital sex, have very high divorce rates, support certain things which the Bible is clearly against, for example, ‘lgbt rights’.

    When it comes to moral/social questions, somehow they are able to ‘deny’ Bible in favor of their own ideology, or their own morality… I wish they would do the same thing when it comes to evolution and age of the universe.

  17. Diana MacPherson
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    The confusion of history and evolution was pretty weird. Hey commenter – even if we accepted everything you said as truth, evolution isn’t history!

    • Bric
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      I assume he doesn’t accept a historic Jesus either

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

        That was my reaction. These people invariably think the Bible is history; it’s why they have such a problem accepting evolutionary theory.

        I also liked the bit about humans not being animals because we don’t have fur. I wonder if that guy gets regular full body waxes to make his body as God intended.

        • bric
          Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

          He obviously hasn’t heard of lanugo. Or naked mole-rats. Plus I know some very furry people.

          • Reginald Selkirk
            Posted September 3, 2016 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

            Elephants. Armadillos. Chupacabra.

            • Rob Munguia
              Posted September 3, 2016 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

              More mammals to the list. xoloescuincle, the Aztec’s hairless dog:), whales and dolphins.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted September 3, 2016 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

            Something a creationist hasn’t heard of that disproves their theory? Not there’s a surprise!😀

        • Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

          This reminds me the alleged ancient discussion about the definition of “human”, where some philosopher proposed “A two-legged featherless creature”, another one showed a rooster stripped of his feathers, and philosopher No. 1 amended his definition by adding: “…with flat nails”.

        • ichneumonid
          Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:04 am | Permalink

          Yes, I thought the furless human thing was a weird comment! Bugger, because I’ve been wasting my time shaving all these years for nothing, not to mention all that money spent needlessly on haircuts.

  18. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    The morality argument reminds me of Mark Twain’s quote
    “Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to” (intended as a praise of animals, not a defense of special creation of men)
    (And technically wrong as both dogs and monkeys have other ways of conveying feelings of shame).

    The gaps argument should be seen as a fallacy by any avid reader of detective stories. In ANY investigation, you sometimes have a partial picture, which is true as far as it goes. Getting stuck after assembling 1/4th of a jigsaw puzzle doesn’t mean you assembled it incorrectly.

  19. bric
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    “Who does not understand should either learn, or be silent.” – Dr John Dee, 1527-1609

    Tweet from Werner Twertzog ‏@WernerTwertzog
    Dear Tom Wolfe,
    I shall try to remember your better work, from a few generations ago.
    Die well,

    • bric
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink


      Werner Twertzog ‏@WernerTwertzog Aug 31
      I am open-carrying “The Origin of Species.”

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

        I love it!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      “Werner Twertzog” — didn’t he direct Twitzcarraldo and Twaguirre, the Wrath of God?

      • George
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        My favorite is Werner Twertzog Eats His Shoe.

        Inspired by a great Errol Morris documentary – Gates of Heaven. A movie nominally about pet cemetaries.

        • George
          Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

          And I misspelled cemeteries.

        • bric
          Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

          It was Werner Herzog who ate his shoe, although some nice people think they may be the same person

  20. Posted September 3, 2016 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Another point of confusion common to creationists is the idea that all they need to do is “refute Darwin”, or in this case “refute” poor Professor Ceiling Cat, instead of realizing they’re lining up against 150+ years of science and a mountain of evidence.

    They still think it’s merely a theological argument between equal parties.

    I’d also like to see a poll where participants are asked, “How well do you think you understand evolutionary theory?”, and are then tested on their actual knowledge. I suspect it would be about 90% saying they understand it very well, who then score 0% on knowledge.

  21. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    I stopped by there yesterday to have a look through the comments, but found so much distilled stupidity dispiriting, so soon had to quit.

  22. bric
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Worth mentioning an episode of In Our Time on Language and the mind with Steven Pinker and Jonathan Miller

    “Language”, as Chomsky put it, “makes infinite use of finite media”. “Language”, as Steven Pinker puts it, “comes so naturally to us that it’s easy to forget what a strange and miraculous gift it is”. “All over the world”, he writes, “members of our species spend a good part of their lives fashioning their breath into hisses and hums and squeaks and pops and are listening to others do the same”. Jean Jacques Rousseau once said that we differ from the animal kingdom in two main ways – the use of language and the prohibition of incest. Language and our ability to learn it has been held up traditionally as our species’ most remarkable achievement, marking us apart from the animals.

  23. keith cook +/-
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    If nothing else it is clear that given all of the evidence for evolution and natural selection it means diddly squat to those with intellectual cramp.
    Reviews to the contrary of religious priority only make that cramp more excruciatingly painful.
    Prof(E) good job!
    That was mean but it was entirely true.

  24. Posted September 3, 2016 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Forgive me if I am simple-minded,but I want to ask this question: is Tom Wolfe suggesting that our brain is not a product of evolution? If language is learned, it is learned by our brain. Our brain is what makes thought possible as well as lots of other things, including language. So how can ANY human ability or trait NOT be a product of evolution? In effect Wolfe is saying that all learning takes place outside our brain.
    If not there, then where? In Wolfe’s case maybe it is his genitalia, in which case I dub him Tom “Dick-head” Wolfe.

  25. rickflick
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    It strikes me that these web critics are not quite sincere. They are not stupid and could study and adjust to evolution if they allowed themselves the honesty. No, I think it is a form of religious anti-intellectualism. These are people who have not experienced educational institutions very successfully. They resent the fact that some people are happy to have climbed out of ignorance leaving them behind. Rather than accept the challenge of reading a few books to become informed on evolution, they find it simpler to just refuse to follow the lead of others. They find their collective ignorance comforting.

  26. Dave
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    It’ back on the front page.

  27. Hempenstein
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Lotta pigeons you attracted to the chess board that time. And dang if they didn’t fly off all puffed up, too.

    Great zinger about Labor Day.

    • Filippo
      Posted September 3, 2016 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

      “Great zinger about Labor Day.”

      I take it Labor Day is to honor those who EARN money.

      I contemplate why there is not in the U.S. a Capitalist Day to honor those who “MAKE” money.

      • Hempenstein
        Posted September 3, 2016 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

        Nope, it’s sartorial snark with a historical reference. See comments to #2 above.

  28. somer
    Posted September 3, 2016 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    Its depressing that Jerry always has to fight so much ignorance and cops insults for the service. Waste in space comments galore come his way. Its also depressing that lazy and ignorant views of people like Wolfe are a dime a dozen. Judging from that, complemented by the ridiculous white suit and smug smile, he should cultivate some perspective and respect for the debt society owes scientists for modern marvels, and the care they take in their profession (as opposed to showmanship).

  29. Norbert Kehl
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 3:06 am | Permalink

    I have a question: I am following your blog (and am an email subscriber), but what is annoying is that on your website there is always the info about your books hovering over the text (and partly covering it). Now usually we would assume that we can click it away but I simply can’t find the button to do that – can anyone help me out here?




    • Posted September 4, 2016 at 4:31 am | Permalink

      On a normal computer, the information won’t cover the text; maybe it will on a phone; I don’t know. Others should weigh in here.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: