Yeah, no. Thinking you understand != understand.

well yeah, because we are the most evolved country in the world.

/ducks

My grandfather is not a fish therefor evolution is false and the Bible is true

I Said: My grandfather is not a fish therefor evolution is false and the Bible is true

My grandfather was a fish. What now?

We're Number 1! We're Number... what's that? Oh, Goddamnit.

FTA:Only Russia (48%), USA (42%), South Africa (41%) and Egypt (25%) remained sceptical about the scientific evidence that exists to support Darwin's theory.

RainWhenIDie: My grandfather was a fish. What now?

Join the Justice League as the most useless superhero?

I am have as higher right now, so I'm getting a kick...

Ah, the Dunning-Kruger effect... or as my high school biology teacher put it, these would be the people who don't know and don't know they don't know. Of the four kinds of people in the world, they're the worst.

1) Those who know and know they know. They're in good shape obviously.
2) Those who know and don't know they know. They may just lack confidence. There's hope for them.
3) Those who don't know and know they don't know. They're ignorant and they know it. That's okay. We're all ignorant about many things. They can be taught.
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know. Yeah, they're farked and they'll fark up the rest of us given the chance.

Only Russia (48%), USA (42%), South Africa (41%) and Egypt (25%) remained sceptical about the scientific evidence that exists to support Darwin's theory.

Wait, Russia's dumber than we are? Woohoo! We beat someone!

patrick767: Wait, Russia's dumber than we are? Woohoo! We beat someone!

They're not dumb, they're just too drunk to care.

/Male life expectancy: 61.5 years and dropping

RainWhenIDie: My grandfather was a fish. What now?

You're 1/4 a fish, and your grandmother was a Led Zeppelin fan.

I Said: My grandfather is not a fish therefor evolution is false and the Bible is true

Cladistically speaking, your grandfather most definitely is a fish.

So, that says a whole bunch of Christians think they understand what Darwin was saying, but really just understand what their preacher has yelled at them?

We also know all the quests in WoW and the name of Luke Skywalker's aunt. We're experts on fiction.

I'll be riding my dinosaur with Jeebus if anyone needs me.

GAT_00: So, that says a whole bunch of Christians think they understand what Darwin was saying, but really just understand what their preacher has yelled at them?

Since the survey only measured self-asserted degree of understanding, and did not directly measure the understanding... probably, yes.

GAT_00: So, that says a whole bunch of Christians think they understand what Darwin was saying, but really just understand what their preacher has yelled at them?

Their preacher probably told them that they now know what their talking about.

opiumpoopy: You're 1/4 a fish, and your grandmother was a Led Zeppelin fan.

that, is a post of pure beauty.

A stopped clock is right twice a day, too.

That is unpossible. There are millions of religtards in this country that think the process of evolution has something to do with the origin of life.

RainWhenIDie: I Said: My grandfather is not a fish therefor evolution is false and the Bible is true

My grandfather was a fish. What now?

Are you related to Troy McClure?

But not, obviously, of grammar.

patrick767: 1) Those who know and know they know.
2) Those who know and don't know they know.
3) Those who don't know and know they don't know.
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know.

Summon He Who Cannot Be Named.

madmann
I am have as higher right now, so I'm getting a kick...


This!

In related news, 93% of American men think they are "above average" lovers.

patrick767
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know. Yeah, they're farked and they'll fark up the rest of us given the chance.

90% if them think they're in category one, usually found biatching about that 4th category.

I'm guessing it's the unlikely tag because there isn't a ROFTLMAO, LOLCOPTER tag or some such.

They tell us that / We lost our tails
Evolving up / From little snails
I say its all / Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!

Were pinheads now / We are not whole
Were pinheads all / Jocko homo
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o!

Monkey men all / In business suit
Teachers and critics / All dance the poot
Are we not men? / We are devo!
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o!

God made man / But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan / Were all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape / Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man / But a monkey supplied the glue
We must repeat
O.k. lets go!

DemonEater: But not, obviously, of grammar.

This. As higher level..? That doesn't make any sense dammit. Perhaps you meant As high a level or Dude i'm so high i'm on a new level or whatever..

/fuggit, i'm gonna go read a book

And think of how much farther ahead of everyone else we would be if we didn't count nuked Kansas.

I Said: My grandfather is not a fish therefor evolution is false and the Bible is true

My grandfather was a shark.

Actually, he was a lawyer. Good enough for government work.

So a good number of Americans understand evolution the way Tom Cruise understands the history of psychiatry. Got it.

New poll shows that Americans have as higher level of understanding of evolution than any other country in the world

like such as?

DemonEater: But not, obviously, of grammar.

I lol'd

/that make sense to you subby? or you mods?

This all propaganda in the war against science.

RainWhenIDie:
I Said: My grandfather is not a fish therefor evolution is false and the Bible is true

My grandfather was a fish. What now?

Oh, snapper!

as higher level of understanding of evolution than any other country in the world

... but our grammar ain't so evolved.

Super Chronic: So a good number of Americans understand evolution the way Tom Cruise understands the history of psychiatry. Got it.

You're being glib.

br0g: DemonEater: But not, obviously, of grammar.

This. As higher level..? That doesn't make any sense dammit. Perhaps you meant As high a level or Dude i'm so high i'm on a new level or whatever..

/fuggit, i'm gonna go read a book

I believe "a higher level" (just replace "as" with "a") makes sense. Just a typo. Took me a while, though. Of course, as the article makes clear, it's not true, but that's a different matter.

Mom smells of fish.

EvilEgg: RainWhenIDie: My grandfather was a fish. What now?

Join the Justice League as the most useless superhero?

Hahhahaha. Bulls-eye, Mr. Egg.

I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Is that per pound, or per capita?

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unravelling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang.

Um, headline fail. Unless submitter wanted to get a bunch of comments on why his/her headline sucks/is deceptive.

However, linked article is a pretty good explanation of why opinion polls like this are shiat. I don't care what percentage of people in America THINK they understand evolution. I only care about a survey that shows how many of them actually understand it. Their opinion of their own knowledge means nothing to me. Everybody thinks they're smart, but many, many people really aren't.

A question for people here who actually know anything about evolution:

Ok, so I know a lot of theoretical work has been done since Darwin (like Genetic Altruism, etc.) but what I don't hear about it the problem of people.

No doubts, we share a common ancestor with slime mold (or maybe life sprung up in isolated locations all over earth) - I don't doubt that. But what happens when free will, or may hyper intelligence interferes with the natural course of evolution.

For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

DamnYankees: Yeah, no. Thinking you understand != understand.


Yeah well, the same exact thing can be said about PZ Meyers. sheesh.

understanding and belief in evolutionary theory != atheism

/note, I am not a believer in "intelligent design".

Cue relevantly captioned Billy Joel pics...

madmann: I am have as higher right now, so I'm getting a kick...


You am so smart one.

I get it! I really, really get it now!

You guys are sheltered idiots. Explore the world a little bit.
Just because there is a small number of very vocal creationists in the US, doesn't mean that other countries don't have more, less-vocal, beleivers in creationism. The U.S. always has a spotlight because we allow our people to take the stage and rant about whatever they feel to whomever will listen.
Put into a context of political geography, freedoms, and gov't education, as well as social mores and regional cultures, it is very easy to see how America could be leading the nation in evoltutionist thinkers - at least as a ratio of total populations - but whose educated are drowned out by the din of the ignorant.

/See Fark.com

And that's why God hates us -- we live in sin every day.

In all countries polled more people agreed than disagreed that it is possible to believe in a God and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time,

Surely this should be 100% in every country, that it is lower suggests some people didn't understand the question. Note particularly that is says "a God", not "your God". So disagreeing with this is claiming that every faction of every religion that ever does, did or will exist is incompatible with natural selection/evolution. That is beyond Creationist level crazy - that is into such deep denial of reality that you are making clearly non factual statements about everyone else, not just yourself and your own beliefs.

The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

The polls say one thing but he wants to believe another.

International survey vs. "I done talked to folk"

goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Well, it pretty much is a fact. Of course you don't have to believe the evidence. It is the combination of willful dismissal of overwhelming evidence and the delusional belief in imaginary beings that makes you an idiot. But I'm ok with that. I hope you are happy as well.

patrick767: 1) Those who know and know they know.
2) Those who know and don't know they know.
3) Those who don't know and know they don't know.
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know.

5) People who write stupid questions for polls forcing a yes or no answer when a qualified maybe is the only correct answer.

6) People who get annoyed with group 5 and answer stupid questions with stupid answers

7) People who actually talk to pollsters

8) the rest of us, who have better things to do with their free time

kerpal32: DamnYankees: Yeah, no. Thinking you understand != understand.


Yeah well, the same exact thing can be said about PZ Meyers. sheesh.

understanding and belief in evolutionary theory != atheism

/note, I am not a believer in "intelligent design".

You do know he ripped the content of that drawing off from Charles Pellegrino, right?

GeorgeBurns: A question for people here who actually know anything about evolution:

Ok, so I know a lot of theoretical work has been done since Darwin (like Genetic Altruism, etc.) but what I don't hear about it the problem of people.

No doubts, we share a common ancestor with slime mold (or maybe life sprung up in isolated locations all over earth) - I don't doubt that. But what happens when free will, or may hyper intelligence interferes with the natural course of evolution.

For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?


Um..... yousse needs mor scooling.

goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution, is a theory.

GeorgeBurns: and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes

What any individual does isn't much of an issue. You have to look at a whole population and go from there. Of course with humans, our genes allow us to be smart enough to figure out ways to overcome various genetic issues.

Why did my post have to go under the jack-off pic?
God timing sucks sometimes.

Assertion: Americans do not have a high level of understanding of evolution.

Backed up by: nothing.

Good work there, Lou.

highendmighty: Just because there is a small number of very vocal creationists in the US, doesn't mean that other countries don't have more, less-vocal, beleivers in creationism.

They know. Link (new window)

Barnstormer: We are devo!

You posted lyrics. Don't post lyrics. That's something that fat girls do.

Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?

Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody

I personally believe, that U.S. Americans,
are have as higher level of understanding,
because uh,
some, people out there, in our nation don't have as higher.
and uh...
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa,
and the Iraq,
everywhere like such as...

opiumpoopy: RainWhenIDie: My grandfather was a fish. What now?

You're 1/4 a fish, and your grandmother was a Led Zeppelin fan.

At first I was like :-|
But then, I remembered reading Hammer of the Gods in high school, and I LOL'd!

Actually, I'll buy this. I think Rev. Comfort and Kirk Cameron have studied evolution to a higher level than I have.

I'm not a biologist, and really, I don't care enough to do more than pick up a National Geographic in the doctor's office. I'm a smart guy -- smart enough to know that I'll never be an expert, and smart enough to respect the experts so I accept what they say with a minimum of skepticism.

Comfort and Cameron however, are ANGERED by the experts. They actually get down and do their homework. They may be totally wrong, but they've studied.

I however, feel that the evolution debate doesn't matter (religiously) If there is a g-d, I'm responsible for my conduct here, regardless of how that g-d put me here. (lowercase and indefinite article intentional. Hypenated so as not to offend the joos.)

Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?
Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody


You signed your post. Don't sign your post. That's something that middle-aged losers do.

Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?

Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

The Southern Dandy: I personally believe, that U.S. Americans,
are have as higher level of understanding,
because uh,
some, people out there, in our nation don't have as higher.
and uh...
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa,
and the Iraq,
everywhere like such as...

I would still drink that girl's bath water.

Or, "I'd crawl across a mile of broken glass just to kiss the dog that peed on the tire of the truck that takes her panties to the laundry."

Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand?

Evolution = BS

Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand?

Evolution = BS

Have you seen what a wild banana looks like?

How can anyone doubt the bible? It has brought peace to the world!

/Excuse me
//I'm late for my weekly lobotomy

Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?

Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody

You're just in time to hear us make fun of idiots who use signatures on fark.

Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand mouth?

Evolution = BS



FTFY

madblader: I'm late for my weekly lobotomy

How do you keep re-growing that part of your brain? Stem cells?

Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand?

Evolution = BS

Let's not forget Kirk Cameron's "Crocoduck" argument.

goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Yes, exactly. You farking moran.

RainWhenIDie: My grandfather was a fish. What now?

it's not just the fish . . .

/obscure to American farkers?

The Southern Dandy: Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand mouth?

Penis.

Heh heh. This is an extremely poorly worded article.

In the first statistic paragraph he quotes some percentages as being those who have heard of Darwin, and in the same paragraph quotes some percentages as those "saying they had not heard of him" (italic emphasis mine.) Um, well which was it? As written, it's not clear by the end of the paragraph whether the percentages represent those who had or had not heard of Darwin.

The second statistic - the number of skeptical people - is vague. It doesn't say if this is the percentage of all people polled (like the oher statistics) or the percentage of those who answered yes to the first question. Because unless you answered, "yes I have heard of him" in the first question, there's not really much sense in asking the second question about skepticism of his theories. How can you be skeptical of something you don't even know about?

Considering this guy is a college professor with a superior attitude, seems like he would be a little better at clearly communicating the ideas he's trying to convey.

All in all, I get the impression this guy highly overrates his own competence and understanding.

i generally believe in some tenets of evolution, but i don't believe in 'survival of the fittest'. I don't think one species displaces another, just because it was lucky enough to have some genetic adaption which suits it for its environment.

i think instead, all species are always currently undergoing minute changes at the cellular level which presumably make them ALL more suited to the environment.... And eventually, species become unregonizable from their ancestors.

Species, don't dissapear, they evolve to something else.. (not including species that human made go extinct.

Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand?

Evolution = BS
.
.
.
Have you seen how well your hand wraps around a banana?
.
.
.
/Evolution is your friend.

Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?

Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody

Yeah, yeah, "help I am being oppressed".

Why don't you campaign for a new amendment in the consititution: Freedom from criticism.

New poll shows that Americans have as higher level of understanding of evolution than any other country in the world

And still have trouble spelling the word "a".

Spanky_McFarksalot: The polls say one thing but he wants to believe another.

International survey vs. "I done talked to folk"

No, the poll asked people if they thought they understood evolution. It didn't test competence in that knowledge. They need to do a poll where they ask people if they think they're knowledgeable about evolution, and then ask questions to test that competency. Just because someone thinks they know what evolution entails doesn't mean they do. A quick perusal through evolution threads on fark will show that pretty quickly.

ThrobblefootSpectre: How can you be skeptical of something you don't even know about?

This is a joke, right?

goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Because it is. Evolution is scientific fact.

Along with the "theory" of gravitation.
The "theory" of electromagnetism.
The "theory" of relativity.
Atomic "theory".

The word "theory" doesn't mean "guess", even though public schools tell you that's what it means because fundies force them to undermine science. The word "theory" means "best possible current understanding, falsifiable, repeatedly tested and upheld".

Put another way:

The Bruce Dickinson: Religion...denying reality since the dawn of man!

Religion = Superstition + $$$$$

We certainly seem to have the Darwin thing down.

Evolution is really the simplest thing in the world to understand. It's just that everyone is hung up on looking at it in reverse. It doesn't work in reverse. It only works moving forward.

I know a lot of Farkers like to take shots at Dawkins, but The Selfish Gene is one of the most important books you'll ever read. It has applications well outside of biological evolution. It makes no difference that Dawkins is a giant militant asshole.

Also, I'm reading Dan Barker's book godless right now so I'm getting a big kick out of this thread.

kerpal32: Yeah well, the same exact thing can be said about PZ Meyers.

Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand?

A banana fits several places. Including multiple orifices, a couple of which, I am quite certain, we did not evolve for. So I'm not really convinced this is a good example.

James F. Campbell:

Do you see the problem with that graph? It implies that about 90% of people have a below average IQ.

EvilEgg: RainWhenIDie: My grandfather was a fish. What now?

Join the Justice League as the most useless superhero?

Leave Aquaman alone!

ThrobblefootSpectre: Considering this guy is a college professor with a superior attitude, seems like he would be a little better at clearly communicating the ideas he's trying to convey.

You'd be surprised how many college professors are tremendously bad communicators. At least, they're bad at communicating their ideas to a general audience.

mightybaldking: Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand?

Evolution = BS

Have you seen what a wild banana looks like?

Yeah, it fits right in the palm of my hand. I don't know what your point is. Oh, also, here's a picture of me:

goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

TheyCallThisWork: Do you see the problem with that graph? It implies that about 90% of people have a below average IQ.

I think the real problem here is that you take an Internet meme seriously.

GeorgeBurns: A question for people here who actually know anything about evolution:

Ok, so I know a lot of theoretical work has been done since Darwin (like Genetic Altruism, etc.) but what I don't hear about it the problem of people.

No doubts, we share a common ancestor with slime mold (or maybe life sprung up in isolated locations all over earth) - I don't doubt that. But what happens when free will, or may hyper intelligence interferes with the natural course of evolution.

For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

Well a portion of those people will die in surgery (or the doctor will screw up and make the patient uglier) so I guess that sort of evens thing out.

Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?

Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody

Stupidity implies one who cannot understand thins due to an inherent mental disability. Stupid people should be pitied, not despised. No, the thing that bothers us about some creationists (not Christians, creationists, different things) is willful ignorance.

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Yes, exactly. You farking moran.

This will do.


Biological Evolution: Fact

You don't have to like it or accept it, but not doing so proves that you're retarded.

James F. Campbell: This is a joke, right?

That's what I thought about this article too. :-)

TheyCallThisWork: It's just that everyone is hung up on looking at it in reverse.

How do you mean?

It's obvious that evolution does not work in reverse. If a genetic line gets to a stage of evolution and gets stuck, it can't backtrack and try another course. It has to proceed from where it is.

But how else can we understand evolution without looking at it in reverse?

mightybaldking: I think Rev. Comfort and Kirk Cameron have studied evolution to a higher level than I have.

Mr. Comfort claimed, in a now redacted blog posting, that ants possess skulls. Such a statement demonstrates that Mr. Comfort possesses absolutely no understanding of biology.

the-meter-man: The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

I agree, National Sales tax FTW

T.rex: i generally believe in some tenets of evolution, but i don't believe in 'survival of the fittest'. I don't think one species displaces another, just because it was lucky enough to have some genetic adaption which suits it for its environment.

i think instead, all species are always currently undergoing minute changes at the cellular level which presumably make them ALL more suited to the environment.... And eventually, species become unregonizable from their ancestors.

Species, don't dissapear, they evolve to something else.. (not including species that human made go extinct.

So no species, besides the ones we made go extinct, has ever gone extinct?

. . .

You realize that is, like, momentously wrong? Evolution happens in branches. One species evolving into another usually involves an offshoot of the original species surviving while the original species goes extinct.

ThrobblefootSpectre: James F. Campbell: This is a joke, right?

That's what I thought about this article too. :-)

It's silly for you to say that people can't be skeptical of something if they don't know about it. Have you even met a Christian from America? They can be totally ignorant about a topic but still have an opinion on it.

Nice to see the right-wing puts the US in the same group as Russia, South Africa, and Egypt.

Way to go, guys. Why don't you think about moving to one of these places that embrace your ideals?

ASeriesOfTubes: And think of how much farther ahead of everyone else we would be if we didn't count nuked Kansas.

Yay!

goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Evolution IS a fact.

And there is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain that fact.

TheyCallThisWork: Evolution is really the simplest thing in the world to understand. It's just that everyone is hung up on looking at it in reverse. It doesn't work in reverse. It only works moving forward.

I know a lot of Farkers like to take shots at Dawkins, but The Selfish Gene is one of the most important books you'll ever read. It has applications well outside of biological evolution. It makes no difference that Dawkins is a giant militant asshole.
.
.
.
Darwin's Rottweiler....
.
.
.
/he's got a bark
//and a bite....
///good book

xria: Yeah, yeah, "help I am being oppressed".

Why don't you campaign for a new amendment in the consititution: Freedom from criticism.
=======

Hmm... Except I'm not saying "Help I'm being oppressed" at all... Nor do I feel I'm being oppressed.

And why would I want freedom from criticism. I think it's healthy.

I was just poking fun at a predictable bit of fark group-think that comes around on posts like this. You're kinda helping me make my point.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Nice to see the right-wing puts the US in the same group as Russia, South Africa, and Egypt.

Who knew Russians were such dumbasses?

I knew they were racist homophobes. Now I find out they're scientific illiterates, too?

Maybe it's all the vodak.

TheyCallThisWork: James F. Campbell:

Do you see the problem with that graph? It implies that about 90% of people have a below average IQ.

No it doesn't. It implies 90% of the people sampled have a below average IQ. Not all samples are going to be representative of the entire population, it depends on the nature of the sampling, and - especially with relative few data points like in this case - random variability.

Honestly, I don't think this is exactly an application of the Dunning-Kruger effect here. When I think of Dunning-Kruger, I think of the guy who took Econ 101 in college and now thinks he knows how to fix the world, or the person who watches Dr. Phil and thinks he knows all about people. Your basic know-it-all, not unlike a lot of Farkers, myself included sometimes.

The phenomenon in the article here is more along the lines of "people who receive all their information from a biased source," as I presume that many self-proclaimed "experts" on evolution got their views from their church groups. Like people who consider themselves experts on President Obama because they frequented Free Republic and now "know" all about his birth certificate. I don't know if there's a name for this pheonomenon, but I don't think it's Dunning-Kruger.

chaoswolf: Biological Evolution: Fact

You don't have to like it or accept it, but not doing so proves that you're retarded.



And the TRUTH shall set you free!

Codyl: I was just poking fun at a predictable bit of fark group-think that comes around on posts like this.

I was going to respond to this, but I realized you'd be a waste of time.

Natural selection does not produce new species. Men do not come from apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.

GeorgeBurns: For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

What "problem"? That an ugly person might pass on their genes by using plastic surgery? I guess that means that in the future there will still be ugly people. Beer has been taking care of this for the last couple millennia. Plastic surgery won't make a difference. What "inferior" genes are getting passed on that don't already get passed on when somebody goes home with an ugly girl after too many drinks?

T.rex: I don't think one species displaces another, just because it was lucky enough to have some genetic adaption which suits it for its environment.

It's just statistics. Let's say that two brothers are born. Brother A has version A of a certain allele, which makes him breed 2% more efficiently. Brother B has the normal B version. He's just normal.

After about 35 generations, Brother A's genes should have been passed on twice as often as Brother B's.

The war might be completely invisible, but there is a competition going on, at the molecular level. Just because of numbers, Brother A's offspring will probably be more likely to survives famines, they'll find mates more often, they'll be more likely to become Alpha members, etc. In time, nearly every member of the population will have allele A.

I suppose the idea of a "species" is a little arbitrary, but, at the level of the gene itself, A will eradicate B.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

read more fark and say that again

xria: No it doesn't. It implies 90% of the people sampled have a below average IQ. Not all samples are going to be representative of the entire population, it depends on the nature of the sampling, and - especially with relative few data points like in this case - random variability.

Actually, that isn't even the case. You're both mistaken about what the graph represents. Here's the original graph:


/hot
//If it doesn't work, click here.

This is, apparently, from you television thingy that you push into your faces for several hours a day. How ironic.

But not of English.

James F. Campbell: ThrobblefootSpectre: James F. Campbell: This is a joke, right?

That's what I thought about this article too. :-)

It's silly for you to say that people can't be skeptical of something if they don't know about it. Have you even met a Christian from America? They can be totally ignorant about a topic but still have an opinion on it.

You say "Have you ever met a Christian from American" like they're some type of oddity. More than 3 out of every 4 Americans identify themselves as a Christian.

Which is why I find it so odd that comments on Fark, for the most part, are generally so anti-Christian. It's like everyone against religion all bunches up on this site to talk about how dumb Christians are and how great Jon Stewart is.

What - did all the moderate mods take the day off leaving the liberal mods to green light all this shiat?

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/lkctl7
(copy and paste)

Super Chronic: I don't think this is exactly an application of the Dunning-Kruger effect here.

Dunning-Kruger has to do with people being so ignorant that they don't accurately estimate their own ignorance. Asking a bunch of ignorant yokel-on-the-street types how well they understand a technical subject, where misunderstanding is almost constantly displayed by a large segment of the public? Seems in the neighborhood.

eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: It's just that everyone is hung up on looking at it in reverse.

How do you mean?

It's obvious that evolution does not work in reverse. If a genetic line gets to a stage of evolution and gets stuck, it can't backtrack and try another course. It has to proceed from where it is.

But how else can we understand evolution without looking at it in reverse?

What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Evolution is a process of random crap getting messed up at the molecular level, and then dying off 99 percent of the time, while 1% of these changes are mildly beneficial. Most people tend to see it as a movement toward some sort of current "perfection", which it most definitely is not.

Codyl: Which is why I find it so odd that comments on Fark, for the most part, are generally so anti-Christian. It's like everyone against religion all bunches up on this site to talk about how dumb Christians are and how great Jon Stewart is.

Go pray about it, kid.

T.rex: i generally believe in some tenets of evolution, but i don't believe in 'survival of the fittest'. I don't think one species displaces another, just because it was lucky enough to have some genetic adaption which suits it for its environment.

I'm struggling with finding an easier way to explain this to you. Members of a population that are slightly better-adapted are more likely to survive and reproduce. It's that simple.

What is up with all these piss-poor headlines lately? The grammatical errors make my brain hurt.

James F. Campbell: Go pray about it, kid.

That's a candy bar in your pastor's front pocket, boy. A big chewy, sweet candy just for you.

TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

headstone: Darwin's Rottweiler

Too true. I love when he's practically begging Stephen Jay Gould to stop being such a pussy.

eraser8: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Nice to see the right-wing puts the US in the same group as Russia, South Africa, and Egypt.

Who knew Russians were such dumbasses?

I knew they were racist homophobes. Now I find out they're scientific illiterates, too?

Maybe it's all the vodak.

The Russians also are quite superstitious on average. Quite common for even college educated people to believe in the evil eye and such. Shows what good decades of government enforced atheism does. . .

gorgor: APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/lkctl7
(copy and paste)
.
.
.
Gorgor, that was just farkin' beauteeful.

eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

It's the same error in thinking without the involvement of religious mythology.

Codyl: It's like everyone against religion all bunches up on this site to talk about how dumb Christians are and how great Jon Stewart is.

what sucks is that the best evidence for evolution is in of itself, very complicated.

mitochondria dude...mitochondria...

gorgor: APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/lkctl7
(copy and paste)

Lol. . . I love the banana argument. Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that. Bananas before domestication were, IIRC, much smaller and less palatable. Humans have been "intelligently designing" plants and animals for a very long time. Not always purposefully.

goldielox: what sucks is that the best evidence for evolution is in of itself, very complicated.

mitochondria dude...mitochondria...
.
.
.
....and.....
.
.
.
/your's fell out
//so I gave you one of mine.

eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

Neither do they, which is why it's so scary. Here's an example:

Q: Why do fish have fins?
A: Because fish live in water and they're a great help for swimming.

The problem is, that's entirely wrong. The real answer is

A: Over the course of millions of years, the DNA of some bloodline got so messed up that weird projections sprouted out of their bodies. It's a good thing they were living in water, or else they'd be really farked.

yeah... I don't think so...
unless you call first hand experience "understanding"
But those people can't voice their true understanding of evolution anymore.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

I did some checking and you are correct. Saying that men came from apes suggests there is a difference. According to wiki: An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food^* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.

I'm taking kids from the YMCA to see the Charles Darwin exhibit at the Great Lakes Science center next week.

TheyCallThisWork: eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

Neither do they, which is why it's so scary. Here's an example:

Q: Why do fish have fins?
A: Because fish live in water and they're a great help for swimming.

The problem is, that's entirely wrong. The real answer is

A: Over the course of millions of years, the DNA of some bloodline got so messed up that weird projections sprouted out of their bodies. It's a good thing they were living in water, or else they'd be really farked.
.
.
.
So THAT's why balls aren't on the inside...
.
.
.
/They'd be a lot safer
//Just sayin'

TheyCallThisWork: Q: Why do fish have fins?
A: Because fish live in water and they're a great help for swimming.

The problem is, that's entirely wrong. The real answer is

A: Over the course of millions of years, the DNA of some bloodline got so messed up that weird projections sprouted out of their bodies. It's a good thing they were living in water, or else they'd be really farked.

Well, that's a partial answer. The other part of it is that it helped these fish get to the fish food just a little bit faster than their fin-less brethren, who died off as a result. (And the corollary: thousands or perhaps millions of other times, weird projections also sprouted out of the bodies of land animals, but it didn't help them at anything and the members of the opposite sex thought it was fugly, so they didn't breed and those protrusions quickly disappeared from the gene pool.)

But I guess your larger point is that it's easy to confuse the combination of randomness and adaptive advantage with "design."

All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.



Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...

...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.

Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!

So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

rjw25: I'm taking kids from the YMCA to see the Charles Darwin exhibit at the Great Lakes Science center next week.

You Heathen!

CrankMyBlueSax: Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

Some of us are just apeier than others.

GeorgeBurns: A question for people here who actually know anything about evolution:

Ok, so I know a lot of theoretical work has been done since Darwin (like Genetic Altruism, etc.) but what I don't hear about it the problem of people.

No doubts, we share a common ancestor with slime mold (or maybe life sprung up in isolated locations all over earth) - I don't doubt that. But what happens when free will, or may hyper intelligence interferes with the natural course of evolution.

For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

There wouldn't be a whole separate theory for this. But in this situation the woman would have the genes that would cause her to do something to increase her fitness, thereby allowing her to pass along more of her genes, including the advantageous genes that allowed her to improve herself.

eraser8: RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.

The shape of bananas is actually relatively unmodified, iirc. It's possible they were bred from something more like a plantain to not have seeds and instead rely on the root-growth reproductive mechanism, but that's the only substantial change we've really made.

So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

CrankMyBlueSax: letrole: Men do not come from apes.

I did some checking and you are correct. Saying that men came from apes suggests there is a difference. According to wiki: An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

Mostly hairless apes with better brains for tool usage.

But yea, apes.

chaoswolf: CrankMyBlueSax: letrole: Men do not come from apes.

I did some checking and you are correct. Saying that men came from apes suggests there is a difference. According to wiki: An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

Mostly hairless apes with better brains for tool usage.

But yea, apes.

TheyCallThisWork: Neither do they, which is why it's so scary. Here's an example:

Q: Why do fish have fins?

It's not a perfect answer. But I don't think it's such a terrible one, either. It gets across the idea that no one "designed" a fish to have fins. It also gets across the idea that fins have survived because they offer their owners a comparative advantage to those without fins.

Just because it doesn't go into the issue of bad nucleotide fact checking in the replication of DNA doesn't mean it's a crazy way to approach the subject.

I didn't bother to RTFA so maybe I'm wrong but I don't
find it surprising at all that Americans have the best
understanding of evolution.

After all, nowhere is it more of an issue then in the U.S.
so odds are that the average American hears news stories
about and discuss evolution with others, more then the
average citizen of any other nation.

headstone: So THAT's why balls aren't on the inside'

About 4% of men are born with undescended testicles. Most of them are "corrected" with surgery. I wonder if some women prefer this streamlined look.

Jim_Callahan: So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

You're wrong. GIS "wild banana" for some examples. Also keep in mind that the term "banana" actually encompasses a whole lot of related species. We have selected a specific type of banana to grow. Since it's not very genetically diverse though, it's starting to get wiped out some places by diseases. You may in fact see some different types of bananas in the future that are not yellow, nor banana shaped.

TheyCallThisWork: headstone: So THAT's why balls aren't on the inside'

About 4% of men are born with undescended testicles. Most of them are "corrected" with surgery. I wonder if some women prefer this streamlined look.
.
.
.
Thinking about that makes my balls hurt. I guess that's evolution nudging me to protect my balls.

In my experience as a bio minor and comp sci major in college evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism. Short winged cormorants in New Zealand for example have speciated away from their normal sized winged cousins because they LOST the controlling gene for increased wing size. The short winged cormorants will never be able to get that controlling gene for normal wing size back unless they mate back within the gene pool, hence a downswing in genetic change.

Also, speciation from genetic mutations has NEVER shown an increase in the DNA complexity of a organism, they always remove or duplicate already present DNA. Even plasmids added to bacterial DNA can't be considered a upswing in evolution since the plasmids were already available within the gene pool.

TheyCallThisWork: About 4% of men are born with undescended testicles. Most of them are "corrected" with surgery. I wonder if some women prefer this streamlined look.

It also dramatically increases the risk for testicular cancer.

patrick767: Wait, Russia's dumber than we are? Woohoo! We beat someone!

Russia is likely still more skeptical about evolutionary theory as Mendelian genetics and Darwinian natural selection were thoroughly trashed beneath Stalin as being propaganda from the West. Lysenkoism became an explanation for heredity, being more in line with notions frequent through the regime of self-actualization, whereas genetics seemingly limits a person.

Jim_Callahan: eraser8: RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.

The shape of bananas is actually relatively unmodified, iirc. It's possible they were bred from something more like a plantain to not have seeds and instead rely on the root-growth reproductive mechanism, but that's the only substantial change we've really made.

So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

The shape may be unchanged but I think the size is pretty different. Almost every fruit and some grains were much, much smaller before domestication. Ever seen what corn looked like before we got to it? Tiny.

Anyone have a source for this? Wikipedia mentions that they had tons of large hard seeds, and has a picture of a wild-type banana. It's quite large but it doesn't have the curved banana shape.

eraser8: goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Evolution IS a fact.

And there is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain that fact.

Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough, and we're looking for a Mitochondrial "Eve." It's still a well-tested theory however. :)

It's evil and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. What more is there to understand?

Americans understand evolution in the same way terrorists understand western society.

People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough, and we're looking for a Mitochondrial "Eve." It's still a well-tested theory however. :)

Evolution is both theory and fact. There is a theory of evolution; but, there is also the fact of evolution.

People_are_Idiots: evolution is a theory,

Evolution is a biological process. It can not be a theory, it either is or it isn't. Now the theory of evolution, is a theory.

Ghastly: It's evil and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. What more is there to understand?

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/kltnf2
(copy and paste)

budzilla: For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism. Short winged cormorants in New Zealand for example have speciated away from their normal sized winged cousins because they LOST the controlling gene for increased wing size. The short winged cormorants will never be able to get that controlling gene for normal wing size back unless they mate back within the gene pool, hence a downswing in genetic change.

Also, speciation from genetic mutations has NEVER shown an increase in the DNA complexity of a organism, they always remove or duplicate already present DNA. Even plasmids added to bacterial DNA can't be considered a upswing in evolution since the plasmids were already available within the gene pool.

What a bizarre point you're trying to make.

An understanding of evolution requires you to speculate that there was a time when "life" was nothing but self-reproducing strings of chemicals. It goes without saying then that a human being has significantly more DNA complexity that our shared 1000-atom ancestor.

If I have missed your point, please correct me. Perhaps you are remarking on how, in the modern age, speciation seems to come from incomplete replication, rather than mutation or redundancy. I can assure you that this is not always the case. Logic precludes it.

RemyDuron: Jim_Callahan: eraser8: RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.

The shape of bananas is actually relatively unmodified, iirc. It's possible they were bred from something more like a plantain to not have seeds and instead rely on the root-growth reproductive mechanism, but that's the only substantial change we've really made.

So they've fit in your hand since before becoming a domesticated food crop.

//Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, my history of husbandry is kinda weak sometimes.

The shape may be unchanged but I think the size is pretty different. Almost every fruit and some grains were much, much smaller before domestication. Ever seen what corn looked like before we got to it? Tiny.

Anyone have a source for this? Wikipedia mentions that they had tons of large hard seeds, and has a picture of a wild-type banana. It's quite large but it doesn't have the curved banana shape.

Carrots were invented by the Dutch from swedes (the vegetable, not the nation). The modern apple is unrecognisable from its ancestors. All Hass avocados come from grafts of a single tree grown in the 1800s.

Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

Retort: where the fark do they think dogs come from?

God.

Sadly, I'm not joking.

Retort: Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

Typically, creationists will argue that dogs "come from" previous generations of dogs, as part of their position that organisms reproduce "after their own kind". Such a claim, however, appeals to an undefined concept, as creationists typically are unable to define "kind" within the context of the statement.

wow I guess I'm the first...

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

letrole: Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?
Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody


You signed your post. Don't sign your post. That's something that middle-aged losers do.

You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do.

People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough, and we're looking for a Mitochondrial "Eve." It's still a well-tested theory however. :)

The Theory of Evolution is a theory to explain the mass of data and mechanisms observed.

Evolution is a fact as allele frequencies in populations change over time.

Nothing will be studied long enough to graduate from theory because such a hierarchy of terms does not exist within science. Facts are facts, theories are theories, laws are laws, and none of them is greater than the other.

Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved. We had words about it when she put "Does the Earth/Gaia evolve?" and she marked my answer "No, only populations evolve, not individuals" wrong. So not even 100% of biologists know what is the definition of Evolution.

Dimensio: Retort: Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

Typically, creationists will argue that dogs "come from" previous generations of dogs, as part of their position that organisms reproduce "after their own kind". Such a claim, however, appeals to an undefined concept, as creationists typically are unable to define "kind" within the context of the statement.

I have heard them define the dog 'kind' as wolves, coyotes, foxes,and all varieties of domestic dogs. Lines are drawn more on families.

Evolution of species is obvious, comes from observation.

The theory of evolution does not attempt to describe how or when life began, although it does put a damper on anybody declaring the earth to be 6,000 years old.

Life can still be a magical eternal miracle,
evolution doesn't really put a damper on that.

OniNeko: letrole: Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?
Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody


You signed your post. Don't sign your post. That's something that middle-aged losers do.

You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do.
.
.
.
Evolutionarily speaking, which came first:

Le Douche or Le Troll?

Retort: Beyond all the tricky ones most people can be forgiven for not knowing, where the fark do they think dogs come from?

The standard response is one of kind and the acceptance of limited variation within said kind. Kind is, of course, an undefined term, and no limitation upon genetic variation outside of the medium (genetics) has thus far been observed. Generally, you'll encounter examples given in lieu of a definition for kind which is meant to make the term seem matter-of-fact and obvious, such as a dog and a cat.

My best rebuttal to this is to confuse people with rodents and non-rodents, asking if rats, mice, weasels, capybara, guinea pigs, beavers, hares, hedgehogs, and chinchillas are all one kind. Enough of those are rodents, and enough of those are confused as rodents, while none of the creatures is esoteric (capybara may be, but most people know this as the largest modern rodent). Of course, unless someone knows which are rodents and which aren't, the answer is usually yes, or eliminating a few (correctly or incorrectly). In which case, kind obviously is at least as nebulous as class or not apparent enough to excuse a lack of definition.

GORDON: Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved. We had words about it when she put "Does the Earth/Gaia evolve?" and she marked my answer "No, only populations evolve, not individuals" wrong. So not even 100% of biologists know what is the definition of Evolution.

a biology TA is hardly a biologist

TheyCallThisWork:
What a bizarre point you're trying to make.

An understanding of evolution requires you to speculate that there was a time when "life" was nothing but self-reproducing strings of chemicals. It goes without saying then that a human being has significantly more DNA complexity that our shared 1000-atom ancestor.

If I have missed your point, please correct me. Perhaps you are remarking on how, in the modern age, speciation seems to come from incomplete replication, rather than mutation or redundancy. I can assure you that this is not always the case. Logic precludes it.

So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.TheyCallThisWork: budzilla: For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism. Short winged cormorants in New Zealand for example have speciated away from their normal sized winged cousins because they LOST the controlling gene for increased wing size. The short winged cormorants will never be able to get that controlling gene for normal wing size back unless they mate back within the gene pool, hence a downswing in genetic change.

Also, speciation from genetic mutations has NEVER shown an increase in the DNA complexity of a organism, they always remove or duplicate already present DNA. Even plasmids added to bacterial DNA can't be considered a upswing in evolution since the plasmids were already available within the gene pool.

What a bizarre point you're trying to make.

An understanding of evolution requires you to speculate that there was a time when "life" was nothing but self-reproducing strings of chemicals. It goes without saying then that a human being has significantly more DNA complexity that our shared 1000-atom ancestor.

If I have missed your point, please correct me. Perhaps you are remarking on how, in the modern age, speciation seems to come from incomplete replication, rather than mutation or redundancy. I can assure you that this is not always the case. Logic precludes it.

So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

GORDON: Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved.

Maybe she was referring to the idea of acquired characteristics. It's true that acquired characteristics are nonhereditary changes in function or structure of an organism; but, they're still changes that can be brought about in individuals due to environmental pressures.

But, being nonhereditary, occurring only during the lifespan of the organism, it plays no real role in Darwinian evolution.

James F. Campbell: xria: No it doesn't. It implies 90% of the people sampled have a below average IQ. Not all samples are going to be representative of the entire population, it depends on the nature of the sampling, and - especially with relative few data points like in this case - random variability.

Actually, that isn't even the case. You're both mistaken about what the graph represents. Here's the original graph:

/hot
//If it doesn't work, click here.

Fair enough, but the original version of the graph in the thread didn't have the "by country" bit in it which kind of changes the meaning somewhat.

gorgor: Ghastly: It's evil and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. What more is there to understand?

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/kltnf2
(copy and paste)

So, gorgor, what happened to your links? Why the copy and paste?

The Bruce Dickinson: Religion...denying reality since the dawn of man!

Wait a minute. Wil Wheaton can suck a dead dog's dick, but THE BRUCE DICKINSON? Ladies and gentlemen we may very well be in the presence of greatness!

/Maiden rules!!! "Number one's" fark-boy... not so much

WhyteRaven74: People_are_Idiots: evolution is a theory,

Evolution is a biological process. It can not be a theory, it either is or it isn't. Now the theory of evolution, is a theory.

Well, that's kind of confusing. I'd say it like this:

It's a fact that evolution occurs. Mutations occur, mutations of positive value can occur, therefor evolution occurs. This is pretty much undeniable unless you don't believe in DNA and genetic mutations.

The theory of evolution is that the wide variety of species on Earth can be explained by this mechanism.

Similarly, gravity is a fact. You put two masses next to each other, they attract each other with a force proportional to their massive and inverse proportional to the square of the distance between them. Newton's theory of universal gravitation said that this mechanism explained the movement of heavenly bodies and held in the entire universe. And actually, he was kind of wrong, and Newton's theory of universal gravitation was replaced with Einstein's theories on gravity. Which have not yet been resolved with the quantum mechanical theory of gravity.

GORDON: Hell, I had a biology TA once that thought individuals (Gaia...) evolved. We had words about it when she put "Does the Earth/Gaia evolve?" and she marked my answer "No, only populations evolve, not individuals" wrong. So not even 100% of biologists know what is the definition of Evolution.

I wouldn't call a TA a biologist, but depending on if we're speaking of descent with modification or allele frequency, both can be said to evolve. Genes will mutate and be selected for or against. An individual evolves by descent with modification, whereas the population evolves by the selection process. Of course, the question is awkward, and without having specifically stated one or the other I couldn't fault anyone, but I would understand exactly what you meant by your answer.

headstone: OniNeko: letrole: Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?
Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody


You signed your post. Don't sign your post. That's something that middle-aged losers do.

You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do.
.
.
.
Evolutionarily speaking, which came first:

Le Douche or Le Troll?

At the same time. Those are two different names for the same thing. Not dissimilar to the 'difference' between a house cat and felis domesticus.

eraser8: The Southern Dandy: Unixfreak: Have you guys ever seen how well a banana fits into your hand mouth?

Penis.

Thanks. I forgot that part.

So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

wmoonfox: And that's why God hates us -- we live in sin every day.

Well, fark him if he can't take a joke.

OniNeko: You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do

You posted a pointless rant. Don't post pointless rants. That's something that angry young men do.

Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Religions are damn good at surviving though. As sets of memes go, they are some of the most persistent.

budzilla: So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

If we want to define genetic complexity as simply the total amount of different genetics amongst a population, we can. In such a way, one can say speciation and natural selection, in a single step, decrease the genetic complexity, though this is more accurately described as simply the variation. If we want to define genetic complexity as the dependent systems of an organism, I fail to see how you can argue natural selection or speciation loses genetic complexity since any disruption of such systems via either would result in a quickly trimmed branch of the tree.

Speciation caused by genetic drift, a huge force within evolution, can result from increased genetic complexity under the variation definition by both altering and adding to current genetic code. Ring species are a terrific example of this. What you are voicing is strictly the isolation of two populations, decreasing the genetic variation within both populations in a single step. However, the populations will then diverge genetically, increasing genetic complexity.

Smaller populations have less genetic variation. Larger populations have more genetic variation. However, larger populations will probably have greater genetic drift and eventual speciation of certain groups from other certain groups within the population.

Further, natural selection in a single stage is not responsible for genetic complexity. But, natural selection is why adaptability is utterly key by developing niches or becoming invasive into previously occupied niches.

RemyDuron: chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Religions are damn good at surviving though. As sets of memes go, they are some of the most persistent.

In terms of a set of explanations for existence and observable phenomena, religion still possesses the one advantage of having come first.

mightybaldking: Actually, I'll buy this. I think Rev. Comfort and Kirk Cameron have studied evolution to a higher level than I have.

I'm not a biologist, and really, I don't care enough to do more than pick up a National Geographic in the doctor's office. I'm a smart guy -- smart enough to know that I'll never be an expert, and smart enough to respect the experts so I accept what they say with a minimum of skepticism.

Comfort and Cameron however, are ANGERED by the experts. They actually get down and do their homework. They may be totally wrong, but they've studied.
...

AKA the Peanut Butter and Banana fools.
Unfortunately, there seem to be more fools willing to partake in the political process.

Fuller: religion still possesses the one advantage of having come first.

It's also really easy for stupid people to understand.

letrole: OniNeko: You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do

You posted a pointless rant. Don't post pointless rants. That's something that angry young men do.

I don't know where to go with this one. We already have it going in a circle, which was as intended. Oh, well.

/hate it when a good thing ends.

highendmighty: You guys are sheltered idiots. Explore the world a little bit.
Just because there is a small number of very vocal creationists in the US, doesn't mean that other countries don't have more, less-vocal, beleivers in creationism.

A few years ago National Geographic said that 1/3 of Americans believed that life on Earth was created in it's present form by God less than 10,000 years ago. The two studies don't jive.

kerpal32:

Yeah well, the same exact thing can be said about PZ Meyers. sheesh.

understanding and belief in evolutionary theory != atheism


Not really. One can argue that PZ is wrong, and many do, but one cannot argue that he does not understand the topic or that he lacks knowledge of it, you can only argue with his conclusions and logic. Ignorance is not a viable accusation in a case like that.

I want to kick that headline really really hard in the groin.

budzilla: So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

I find that people making this sort of argument generally have no clue what they are talking about. first define what you mean by genetic complexity because we most definitely can observe instances of speciation resulting in both greater or lesser genetic complexity based on any reasonable definition of genetic complexity I can come up with.

So, what do definition are you using for genetic complexity and why do you think it has always decreased with speciation? Be as specific as you possibly can.

Day_Old_Dutchie: mightybaldking: Actually, I'll buy this. I think Rev. Comfort and Kirk Cameron have studied evolution to a higher level than I have.

I'm not a biologist, and really, I don't care enough to do more than pick up a National Geographic in the doctor's office. I'm a smart guy -- smart enough to know that I'll never be an expert, and smart enough to respect the experts so I accept what they say with a minimum of skepticism.

Comfort and Cameron however, are ANGERED by the experts. They actually get down and do their homework. They may be totally wrong, but they've studied.
...

AKA the Peanut Butter and Banana fools.
Unfortunately, there seem to be more fools willing to partake in the political process.

Exactly, fools. I would also argue that they haven't really studied anything other than talking points. Their arguments make it perfecflty clear that anything they read on evolution not written by a Creationist was either ignored or they failed to comprehend it even the tiniest bit. Their arguments are so off base and nonsensical that it would be funny if millions of people didn't agree with them.

budzilla: So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

Wow. I thought you were just confused. Turns out you have an agenda. Anyway, I'm not afraid to play along.

Speciation is the result of genetic mutation, plain and simple. Mutation leads to death, improvement, or sometimes no change at all. There are many types of mutation. Some involve duplication of bases, some cause the loss of bases, some transpose bases, some change bases randomly, some chop strings in parts. Any one of these can lead to speciation over time.

Speciation doesn't cause genetic complexity. Natural selection doesn't cause genetic complexity. But, changes in genetic complexity can lead to each, or neither, or both. This is what I mean about looking at the process in reverse order.

chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Ia Cthulhu! Ia Chulhu ftaghn!

/voted for him and Lex Luthor last time around
//no, I didn't "waste" my vote

yea,

that's why Americans are always shoving the Bible down my fookin' throat.

Americans do a few things well: Greed, Beer, TV, yacking on the cell phone and saying very little, clothes, sports,commercials, did i say Greed??

Vangor: The standard response is one of kind and the acceptance of limited variation within said kind. Kind is, of course, an undefined term, and no limitation upon genetic variation outside of the medium (genetics) has thus far been observed. Generally, you'll encounter examples given in lieu of a definition for kind which is meant to make the term seem matter-of-fact and obvious, such as a dog and a cat.

My best rebuttal to this is to confuse people with rodents and non-rodents, asking if rats, mice, weasels, capybara, guinea pigs, beavers, hares, hedgehogs, and chinchillas are all one kind. Enough of those are rodents, and enough of those are confused as rodents, while none of the creatures is esoteric (capybara may be, but most people know this as the largest modern rodent). Of course, unless someone knows which are rodents and which aren't, the answer is usually yes, or eliminating a few (correctly or incorrectly). In which case, kind obviously is at least as nebulous as class or not apparent enough to excuse a lack of definition.

I also like to start quizzing them on biological diversity. As someone who works in a lab that works with Protists I may be biased but multi-cellular organisms, wonderful as they are, represent the tiniest fraction of biological diversity on the planet. Hell many of them (other then plants) don't even have large and terribly complex genomes compared to many single-celled organisms and yet most Creationists would be happy to lump all of the Protists into one "kind"and the bacteria into another, the Archea into a third if they are even aware of their existence.

letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species.

This depends on what you mean by "new species".

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoa n-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

Correct; humanity still are a variety of ape, descended from a common ancestor group shared with the other apes.



budzilla: In my experience as a bio minor and comp sci major in college evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism.

So, as a bio minor and comp sci major you are perfectly equipped to answer the question: what when you say "complexity", what complexity class are you talking about?

Also, speciation is not a phenomenon of the individual, but only of population of multiple individuals, so referring to "the organism" looks like its where your problem creeps in.

budzilla: But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation.

Trivial example of increase: polyploidy is common in plants. Increasing the from one copy to two copies requires a larger number of bits, because you need more bits for the encoding of the message length.

Before discussing complexity and information any further, you should first check out Linz (or comparable intro; ask a CS prof for a recommendation) for understanding complexity, and then Shannon's paper for information. I'd also suggest you check out "Natural selection for least action", (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178) if you can wade through thermodynamics; colleges often inflict a course on it on CS types for some reason.

Evolutionary Biology is simply a non-uniform random walk in N-dimensions.

People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough,

No, evolution is a "theory" because every scientific model is "just a theory". There's no such thing as a scientific proof.

abb3w: Evolutionary Biology is simply a non-uniform random walk in N-dimensions.

Only as a simplified model :) And of course the landscape being explored changes as you explore it.

GeorgeBurns: For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking- but as far as "passing on genes that are inferior for survival due to sexual preference" goes, we see that in animals all the time- it's called sexual selection. It's why we have brightly colored birds, even though muted colors are better both for hiding from predators, and for stalking prey.

abb3w: letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species.

This depends on what you mean by "new species".

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier ...consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

Correct; humanity still are a variety of ape, descended from a common ancestor group shared with the other apes.



budzilla: In my experience as a bio minor and comp sci major in college evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism.

So, as a bio minor and comp sci major you are perfectly equipped to answer the question: what when you say "complexity", what complexity class are you talking about?

...

AronRa? Is that you?

GeorgeBurns:
For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

It's part of sexual selection, that is, the selection of genes by sexual preference of the two mates. What you're asking is, is there a specific term for this "cheating" by artificially modifying a persons appearance so as to fool another person into being attracted to them. I'm not sure there is, but I don't think it's different to any other form of sexual selection.

You might think that an ugly person who goes through surgery is passing on inferior genes, but they're indicating what their values are and therefore what sort of parent they will be. They're also indicating their sexual availability and therefore likelihood of breeding. It's also known within nature for mates to be attracted based on what a suitor has constructed, rather than on properties inherent to their genes. The Bower-bird comes to mind.

Wiki article on the Bower-bird.

Essentially, a new nose or bigger breasts are the human equivalent of a well constructed bower. Something that serves no purpose except as part of a mating ritual. If any term explains the place of such things within evolution, I suppose it would be "Extended Phenotype", a term referring to those traits that are important to sexual selection, but not directly controlled by the genes.

Duh, we all evolved from Adam and Eve over the last 6000 years, what's so hard to understand about that.

"...but if you don't believe in God, then really you've got to have an explanation for this, and you just can't tell me this spun out of a gastreous ball-"

"Then all of a sudden then we were evolved from monkeys-why we still got monkeys? There's too much open here. I just believe that, and if you don't believe that, then I don't like talking to you."

"Why we still got monkeys?"

dennysgod: we all evolved from Adam and Eve over the last 6000 years

Why would we have to evolve?

The Bruce Dickinson: And the TRUTH shall set you free!

I have a pair of hand cuffs with a custom inscription: Véritás Te Líberábit.

/i have fun with them..

Fuller: RemyDuron: chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Religions are damn good at surviving though. As sets of memes go, they are some of the most persistent.

In terms of a set of explanations for existence and observable phenomena, religion still possesses the one advantage of having come first.

Also most people are religious, so most people will be raised in religious households. Genes aren't the only thing passed down in families.

Understanding is one thing, Accepting/Believing it is another.

Acid_Casualty: but if you don't believe in God

I hate Steve Harvey. I hate him so much.

I guess Barry has come the closest to answering my question. Let me re-phrase it;

As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution??? Not just by creating an artificial appearence of good health and fertility (boob jobs, etc) but by technologies like laser eye surgery (you can no longer know if you are avoiding people with poor eye health,) medicine that enables the unhealthy or unfit members to continue to contribute to the gene pool (maybe in lower apes those individuals die out without speading traits that are unproductive, or even dangerous,) etc.

And to the point about colorful birds, I'll use the example of the indigo bunting. There was just a "Living on Earth" episode tonight that addressed this point. They say that the males extreme plumage draws predetors from the well camoflaged mother and nest; once the male's traits are passed on, he is willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of his offspring - genetic altrusim. Singer said that this is why a single Jay will call out when they see a predetor - to save the rest of his flock by slef sacrifice, thereby increasing the the odds of the flocks survival. A lot of bird populations show this trait, and it is easy to see how it could have evolved.

My point is that with some really boring exceptions, humans seem to be the only species that develop sophistcated technologies that really complicate the selection process. The colt .45 motto comes to mind (God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.) It's trite, but I think the point is a good one. Farming, medicine, weapons, etc - all of these things alter the environment in very strange, almost random ways, and alter it quickly enough that a population is not really going to adapt to any given artificial environment.

I think this is a big problem. If evolutionary theory (in the scientific sense) is true, then it must deal with this issue; As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species. Men do not come from apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.

Wow. So much fail in such a short post. This has some of the highest fail density I've ever seen, and is probably on the verge of being a fail singularity.

Let's take it bit by bit:
Natural selection does not produce new species.

This might be the closest to accurate thing you said. Indeed, this is kind of correct. Natural selection does not produce species, it determines which variants survive. Technically it is the genetic variation combined with selection for or against certain traits which produce new species.

Men do not come from apes.

Well, to be completely accurate humans ARE apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.

I wish it were allowable to smack upside the head everyone who says this. No, it does not. Natural Selection is not, nor has ever been "survival of the fittest". It is "survival of the fit enough". You don't have to be the brightest, strongest, fittest, or any other -est in order to produce offspring. You only have to be good enough to get a mate. And as we have all seen numerous times, the bar is not set very high.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Letrôle is your surname. You are still either a troll or an ignoramus.

GeorgeBurns: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

Probably because what you're talking about has nothing to do with evolution.

GeorgeBurns: As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

Only time will tell. But consider that we have doubled our lifespan in a few hundred years, so we're certainly having an effect on our species. But is anything we create really "unnatural"

This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

GeorgeBurns: As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution???

You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal. This is a common misconception.

Evolution is simply "the change in allele frequencies in a population over time". That is it. No goals. No drive to be the best. Simply the measure of the change in the frequencies of the variations of genes in populations. Everything else in biology stems from these changes.

As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

Our *ability* to learn and adopt technical means to adapt to our environment is biological. That is our evolution. If something were to happen in which those with the ability to learn and pass on were wiped out and only those with learning disabilities were to survive, that would also be evolution.

Evolution has no goals, no drive for betterment. The predictive power in the theory of evolution is that we can hypothesize that "in this population with this variation, if we apply this selective pressure, then we can expect these traits to survive". This allows us to look both forward and back, and use these hypotheses to our advantage (such as in medicine when trying to design better antibiotics, or in agriculture when trying to grow or balance the right crops).

whatshisname: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

Seriously....?

So the drop in native reproductive rates in the U.S. between the 50s and now.... is due to increased survivability?

mamoru: You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal.

But artificial selection DOES have a course or a goal. And that's really what GeorgeBurns is asking about here.

Hey, no Bevets yet!

GeorgeBurns: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Civilization itself, let alone any single civilization, hasn't been around for anywhere near long enough to do much in terms of human evolution, our reproduction is too slow.

The reason people have less kids is sociology and pretty simple. In undeveloped countries, lots of children die young. So it behooves people to have more kids than they actually want, because quite a few aren't gonna make it. Also, in such countries, children can often provide needed help at home, in the fields, or in the factory. As medical technology increases, and laws against child labor are put in place, children become more of a burden than a boon, and people start having less kids.

It's happened in many different areas at many different times. At first, people have lots of children for assistance, but most of them die. Then they either develop or import better medical technology, and more children survive, and there is a huge population boom. Then this number of people starts becoming a problem, people stop having so many children, and the population decreases. We are in the advanced stages of this in the US and Japan.

joethebastard: whatshisname: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

Seriously....?

So the drop in native reproductive rates in the U.S. between the 50s and now.... is due to increased survivability?

Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

eraser8: mamoru: You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal.

But artificial selection DOES have a course or a goal. And that's really what GeorgeBurns is asking about here.

Fair enough. I was merely responding the the statement regarding the "course of human evolution". As far as nature is concerned, it has no set course (which was my point). However, we do seem to be unique on this planet in that we do have the ability to choose our course.

So, uhh... yeah. No real point in this post. :)

RemyDuron: joethebastard: whatshisname: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

Seriously....?

So the drop in native reproductive rates in the U.S. between the 50s and now.... is due to increased survivability?

Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

Well, I should add, the 1950's baby boom was a bit different. It wasn't due to a sudden improvement in survivability or because we were still rural, it was more cultural than that. But generally the trend has been, as medical technology improves there is a huge boom in population and then the numbers steadily decrease.

RemyDuron: Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

Wow, you must have taken a really louse sociology class. No, actually, there wasn't some magically enormous change in our survival-to-adulthood rates in the last fifty years. We're having less kids because more women are working, and women with careers are less likely to want/have time for kids. Common Sense 101.

mamoru: eraser8: mamoru: You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal.

But artificial selection DOES have a course or a goal. And that's really what GeorgeBurns is asking about here.

Fair enough. I was merely responding the the statement regarding the "course of human evolution". As far as nature is concerned, it has no set course (which was my point). However, we do seem to be unique on this planet in that we do have the ability to choose our course.

So, uhh... yeah. No real point in this post. :)

Eh, not really. Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do. Remember, while we may have choice, our preferences are also the result of evolution.

We're far from the only creature to influence the evolutionary path of other creatures. Basically every interaction among living things does this. In the beginning, man didn't purposefully set out to make plants with more edible fruit and animals more willing to stand around and let us milk or slaughter them. We did it more or less by accident. Just like a predator does not intend to make its prey, over time, faster and stronger, but they do.

joethebastard: Wow, you must have taken a really louse sociology class.

lousy*

/my bad

linuxpyro: Hey, no Bevets yet!

It's the same tired old crap over and over every thread, hopefully he and many of the rest of the trolls (on both sides) have got tired of it and given up.

If they have, maybe we can actually discuss the articles when they come up, rather than just argue over whether evolution is even happening... That'd be spiffy.

RemyDuron: Eh, not really. Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

No no no. That's not what I meant. My apologies for not being clear. I meant that right now, we can* use technology to artificially control and direct how our allele frequencies change. We are reaching the point where we will be able to (if we choose to) control the human genome using technology. Things like gene therapy are already in the works, and designer genetics will probably not be science fiction for much longer.

Remember, while we may have choice, our preferences are also the result of evolution.

Yes, this I understand very well, and was kind of my point up above when I said it is our ability to do these things which is the result of evolution.

We're far from the only creature to influence the evolutionary path of other creatures.

No doubt. My point(less point) was that we are unique in our (up and coming) ability to alter our own "evolutionary path" directly on a molecular level using technology rather than natural or even simple artificial selection.

That is what I was trying (and I guess failing) to say.

joethebastard: RemyDuron: Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

Wow, you must have taken a really louse sociology class. No, actually, there wasn't some magically enormous change in our survival-to-adulthood rates in the last fifty years. We're having less kids because more women are working, and women with careers are less likely to want/have time for kids. Common Sense 101.

You're right that isn't the cause of the 1950s baby boom or subsequent decrease. I posted without thinking. It is the overall cause of population decrease and western countries.

But I think you are actually describing the symptoms of a deeper trend in society. Sure, it seems common sense to say that women have less kids because they started having careers, but why weren't women of previous generations busy with careers and not having children? Because the farther you go back, the more limited career options for women are. But why is that? And the rabbit hole goes on and on. Ultimately it comes back to the fact that when we were largely agricultural, it made more sense for a woman to have kids because more people working the land usually meant more food. As society passed from the agricultural to industrialized stages, before the passage of child labor laws and mandatory education laws, it still was pretty useful to have a bunch of kids. But when children became, essentially, a burden that required 15+ years of development and education before they could get a job, then it stops making sense to have so many kids. Also, as labor becomes less physically oriented and more mentally oriented, women become more prominent int he labor force. The baby boom in the 50s isn't explained by this, but the subsequent decline in population is.

GeorgeBurns:

There is no way to stop evolution from happening. No matter what, the genes of those animals which are more capable of reproducing will eventually dominate their population numerically.

Evolution doesn't care about anything at all. There is no morality in it or goal or focus or tendency, or anything. Intelligence, strength, beauty, height, skin color, and all other genetic traits are only valuable in how likely they make you to reproduce, and how often. There is nothing else.

However, and this is a cool however, human beings are unique in that we are meme carriers. While our bodies work in their own direction, our minds are able to carry a great number of ideas. Interestingly enough, these ideas are capable of subverting biological tendencies toward reproduction. There are ugly guys who can talk girls into bed, for instance. There are chubby chasers. There are milf-hunters. There are gold-diggers. There are people who choose to remain celibate. There are the dreaded users of birth control

It's very difficult to predict what will happen in the future, but my money is on increased promiscuity and acceptance of racial diversity. People with those traits will tend to breed a lot more, and they'll pass on their ideas to their kids.

mamoru: RemyDuron: Eh, not really. Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

No no no. That's not what I meant. My apologies for not being clear. I meant that right now, we can* use technology to artificially control and direct how our allele frequencies change. We are reaching the point where we will be able to (if we choose to) control the human genome using technology. Things like gene therapy are already in the works, and designer genetics will probably not be science fiction for much longer.

Remember, while we may have choice, our preferences are also the result of evolution.

Yes, this I understand very well, and was kind of my point up above when I said it is our ability to do these things which is the result of evolution.

We're far from the only creature to influence the evolutionary path of other creatures.

No doubt. My point(less point) was that we are unique in our (up and coming) ability to alter our own "evolutionary path" directly on a molecular level using technology rather than natural or even simple artificial selection.

That is what I was trying (and I guess failing) to say.

Ah, yeah, that's true. And really really exciting. Still, it's really just a faster and more precise method to do what we, and every other species, has been doing our entire existence.

GeorgeBurns: As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

No.

Culture is completely separate from and independent of biology (beyond you know, genes that allow for speech and dexterous fingers that can write etc; but even that has been overcome by culture)

This is why Dawkins coined the term Meme, as a way of defining units of culture which are replicated and mutate within the 'space' they occupy*.

ie: Link is a meme.


Of course in some far off (or not so far off) future time, we may create people who are more genetically adapted to technology and such (say by genetically modifying a race of people who can live comfortably in .17 G

*I personally really dislike the way this concept has taken root in many peoples imaginations, with the 'mind virus' etc etc. IMO, they stretch the term far beyond its breaking point.

TheyCallThisWork: GeorgeBurns:

There is no way to stop evolution from happening. No matter what, the genes of those animals which are more capable of reproducing will eventually dominate their population numerically.

Evolution doesn't care about anything at all. There is no morality in it or goal or focus or tendency, or anything. Intelligence, strength, beauty, height, skin color, and all other genetic traits are only valuable in how likely they make you to reproduce, and how often. There is nothing else.

However, and this is a cool however, human beings are unique in that we are meme carriers. While our bodies work in their own direction, our minds are able to carry a great number of ideas. Interestingly enough, these ideas are capable of subverting biological tendencies toward reproduction. There are ugly guys who can talk girls into bed, for instance. There are chubby chasers. There are milf-hunters. There are gold-diggers. There are people who choose to remain celibate. There are the dreaded users of birth control

It's very difficult to predict what will happen in the future, but my money is on increased promiscuity and acceptance of racial diversity. People with those traits will tend to breed a lot more, and they'll pass on their ideas to their kids.

I don't think we're unique in this regard (I'm sure plenty of creatures have ended up with the proximate cause of their actions subverting the ultimate cause, ever seen a dog hump a pillow?), but we are by far the most expansive. And the idea of memes is really interesting, that there is an analogy to evolution occuring in the realm of ideas and culture advancing at a much, much greater rate than biological evolution.

ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link. I think this is an obvious sign that evolution does not have goals or necessarily guarantee the survival of the best or fittest.

;)

/disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

ninjakirby: GeorgeBurns: As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

No.

Culture is completely separate from and independent of biology (beyond you know, genes that allow for speech and dexterous fingers that can write etc; but even that has been overcome by culture)

This is why Dawkins coined the term Meme, as a way of defining units of culture which are replicated and mutate within the 'space' they occupy*.

ie: Link is a meme.


Of course in some far off (or not so far off) future time, we may create people who are more genetically adapted to technology and such (say by genetically modifying a race of people who can live comfortably in .17 G

*I personally really dislike the way this concept has taken root in many peoples imaginations, with the 'mind virus' etc etc. IMO, they stretch the term far beyond its breaking point.

Well, if civilization lasts long enough to be "noticed" by evolution, then it will certainly effect our evolution. And if a single culture remained unchanged for a hundred thousand years or so, I'm sure you'd see some adaptations to the culture.

The thing is, civilization is only 8000 years old. It's ridiculously new in evolutionary terms for a species with our reproduction rate.

mamoru: ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link. I think this is an obvious sign that evolution does not have goals or necessarily guarantee the survival of the best or fittest.

;)

/disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

Oh man. . . you don't even want to know how convoluted and insane the Zelda timeline is. Really. You don't want to know.

ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

Milhouse is also a meme.

GeorgeBurns:

As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution?

Halted, no. Altered, yes.

This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

The important thing is the number of surviving offspring. Americans and Japanese as well as Western Europeans have very high survival rates for children, so don't need to have more. By reducing the number of offspring, parents in wealthy nations ensure more resources per child, increasing their chances of survival and success within society and therefore increasing their chances of reproductive success. There's also the fact that reducing the overall number of humans reduces the strain on our collective resources, therefore increasing the chances for the survival of the species. Some people choose to remain childless, Genetic Altruism at work.

The strategy of reducing the number of offspring to increase individual survival rates only works for humans because of the society we have created. So we have very much altered the course of our own evolution.

RemyDuron: Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

That's sexual selection.

And whether man discovered artificial selection by accident makes no difference. Can man artificially select for traits? Yes. Does he? Yes. Even if the ability to do this is a product of evolution, it's hard to argue that there is not "design" in artificial selection.

Super Chronic: So, gorgor, what happened to your links? Why the copy and paste?

Forbidden subject is forbidden.

GeorgeBurns: As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution???

Our intelligence and altruism are evolved traits. Considering our essential dominance of the entire world, I would say both are amazing traits. Perhaps negative traits continue through the human population more than without those two traits, but all the same the environment seems to have selected and to continue to select despite the consequences. I merely know of little else with such obvious advantages with such obvious consequences, which is why we may appear to be outside the scope of evolution.

GeorgeBurns: If evolutionary theory (in the scientific sense) is true, then it must deal with this issue; As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

You've already attempted to reach your own conclusion by believing our altering of the environment to be artificial, thus I'll answer the question posed first and the inaccuracy of your statement after.

We do not necessarily need to adapt to a changing environment, but this is an eventual process provided that a minor advantageous adaption can occur. However, the adaptation is only advantageous if helping to raise the fitness of an organism The problem comes with inaccurately determining fitness of an organism. Organisms which run faster, which are stronger, which have better sight, etc., are not necessarily more fit than other organisms; the most fit organism is the one which is capable of producing the most fit offspring which is capable of producing the most fit offspring. Obviously, this is difficult to determine until after the fact when the branches of the tree become sheered, essentially.

The statement is problematic though because the environment is not artificial if we mean "as opposed to natural". We are natural, what we do is natural, our buildings are as natural as a bee hive or an ant colony or a beaver dam, we simply are not used to thinking this way until recently. We adapted by having developed the means to alter our environment to great extent.

GeorgeBurns: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much?

Reproducing more is not necessarily advantageous. Organisms often employ two reproduction strategies, the first being investing resources into fewer children to assure survival, and the second being reproducing a mass of children, many of whom will die, to assure a few will survive. Both are advantageous to certain extents and in certain situations.

Both have limitations as well in the handling of resources and amount of fitness. The biggest population possible isn't necessarily desirable while the largest, longest sustainable population is.

mamoru: /disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

Wind Waker was a soft cellshaded version for the Gamecube, before being restored to its rightful and brilliant glory in Twilight Princess for the Wii.

But why we still got monkeys?

ninjakirby: Wind Waker was a soft cellshaded version for the Gamecube, before being restored to its rightful and brilliant glory in Twilight Princess for the Wii.

And while everyone raved about Link, I was on my computer with Garrett about to blackjack him and throw his body to the spiders.

RemyDuron: mamoru: ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link. I think this is an obvious sign that evolution does not have goals or necessarily guarantee the survival of the best or fittest.

;)

/disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

Oh man. . . you don't even want to know how convoluted and insane the Zelda timeline is. Really. You don't want to know.

This.

To briefly sum up, each Link and each Zelda are iterations, i.e. they're not the same Link or the same Zelda in each game, but rather new individuals hundreds of years apart from their namesakes. Except in the case of direct sequels, like how Phantom Hourglass directly picks up where Wind Waker leaves off. Ganon, however, is generally considered to be the same individual.

There's significant argument over exactly which games go in which order.

VonAether: There's significant argument over exactly which games go in which order.

"Timeline theorists" - "Hylian Cosmology" - "Basmentalist Virgins"

Vangor: Our intelligence and altruism are evolved traits. Considering our essential dominance of the entire world, I would say both are amazing traits. Perhaps negative traits continue through the human population more than without those two traits, but all the same the environment seems to have selected and to continue to select despite the consequences. I merely know of little else with such obvious advantages with such obvious consequences, which is why we may appear to be outside the scope of evolution.

The negative traits are the most interesting of all to me. An extremely detrimental yet recessive gene will actually find an equilibrant level in a population. This might be the simple answer to questions like "Why is there altruism?" or "How can there be a genetic aspect to homosexuality?"

ninjakirby: "Timeline theorists" - "Hylian Cosmology" - "Basmentalist Virgins"

This is funny because it's true.

Timelines are admittedly an interest of mine, but in this case all I do is check that site every year or so to see if they've managed to put one together yet.

patrick767:
1) Those who know and know they know. They're in good shape obviously.
2) Those who know and don't know they know. They may just lack confidence. There's hope for them.
3) Those who don't know and know they don't know. They're ignorant and they know it. That's okay. We're all ignorant about many things. They can be taught.
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know. Yeah, they're farked and they'll fark up the rest of us given the chance.


Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah, and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[moves prisoners]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.

eraser8: RemyDuron: Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

That's sexual selection.

And whether man discovered artificial selection by accident makes no difference. Can man artificially select for traits? Yes. Does he? Yes. Even if the ability to do this is a product of evolution, it's hard to argue that there is not "design" in artificial selection.

It is sexual selection, that's true. My point was the line between "artificial" selection and "natural" selection is not all that clear. Sexual selection is natural selection, but it is also based on the preference of females (usually it's females). Humans altering their DNA due to their preferences thus wouldn't be something new, we'd just be doing it more efficiently.

I am, somewhat, playing devils advocate here, or rather merely raising points of contention because I think they are interesting to explore, but I do think the line between artificial and natural selection is complex and interesting, I just don't have the expertise to explore it. Sure, humanity directly manipulating DNA would be new, but we would be manipulating the DNA to match our preferences, which are the result of evolution, which gets back to evolution and its role in our behavior, which I find very fascinating.

People tend to give human actions special significance. We think we are the only ones with free will, that our choices are more meaningful, unlike animals which act on instinct. But really, the same process produced our brain as produced theirs. Our behavior was "created" by evolution. Although genetically engineering our children to be strong, healthy, tall and broad shouldered may be more direct and efficient than a peahen choosing the peacock with the largest tail feathers, they both seek to achieve the same goal for the same reason. So how "artificial" is it? That is, if you believe there is no god and is no soul or anything like that that make humans special.

I'm really just sort of brainstorming, I could be missing something obvious. I'm not a biologist, my area is physics, but I have a layman's interest in evolution and specifically evolutionary psychology.

suraimu: patrick767:
1) Those who know and know they know. They're in good shape obviously.
2) Those who know and don't know they know. They may just lack confidence. There's hope for them.
3) Those who don't know and know they don't know. They're ignorant and they know it. That's okay. We're all ignorant about many things. They can be taught.
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know. Yeah, they're farked and they'll fark up the rest of us given the chance.


Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah, and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[moves prisoners]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.

I had to look up what that was from, and now I have to see that movie. That's delightful.

mamoru: One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link.

It's called "Final Fantasy."

letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species. Men do not come from apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.


Excuse me, kind sir, but I was wondering... what might your surname be?

RemyDuron: I had to look up what that was from, and now I have to see that movie.

Yes.

Yes, you do.

Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah, and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[moves prisoners]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.

This is not a chawade... we need total concentrashan

GeorgeBurns: As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution??? Not just by creating an artificial appearence of good health and fertility (boob jobs, etc) but by technologies like laser eye surgery (you can no longer know if you are avoiding people with poor eye health,) medicine that enables the unhealthy or unfit members to continue to contribute to the gene pool (maybe in lower apes those individuals die out without speading traits that are unproductive, or even dangerous,) etc.

Simply put? No, we haven't. This is a common misconception and you'll even see some biologists uttering it but it couldn't be further from the truth. Have we changed our fitness landscape with modern medicine and all that? Certainly. But there is still natural selection going on, we have just managed to alter those selective constraints. One could actually argue that because of modern medicine we now have more raw material for evolution in the human population. Genetic variants that would have been lethal 50 years ago (killed you before you reproduced) may not be now, this allows humans, as a population, to explore deeper "fitness valleys". Compensatory mutations may then turn these negative traits into net positives down the road, we really can't predict anything about the path evolution will take.

So no, all we have done is altered what is important and visible to natural selection through our ingenuity and shifted the emphasis of natural selection, not removed it from the picture.

joethebastard: People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough,

No, evolution is a "theory" because every scientific model is "just a theory". There's no such thing as a scientific proof.

Oh, so gravity is a theory? How bout motion? They were theories before they became law. :) Don't worry, I do believe evolution explains the how.

RemyDuron: WhyteRaven74: People_are_Idiots: evolution is a theory,

Evolution is a biological process. It can not be a theory, it either is or it isn't. Now the theory of evolution, is a theory.

Well, that's kind of confusing. I'd say it like this:

It's a fact that evolution occurs. Mutations occur, mutations of positive value can occur, therefor evolution occurs. This is pretty much undeniable unless you don't believe in DNA and genetic mutations.

The theory of evolution is that the wide variety of species on Earth can be explained by this mechanism.

Similarly, gravity is a fact. You put two masses next to each other, they attract each other with a force proportional to their massive and inverse proportional to the square of the distance between them. Newton's theory of universal gravitation said that this mechanism explained the movement of heavenly bodies and held in the entire universe. And actually, he was kind of wrong, and Newton's theory of universal gravitation was replaced with Einstein's theories on gravity. Which have not yet been resolved with the quantum mechanical theory of gravity.

Hmmm, funny, I was taught gravity as a law, as was laws of motion, energy, and so on, yet evolution is a theory and not a law (mainly because we're still studying it, as possibly a way to explain it further and further back in time). Still is a good reason on mutation and selection (maybe even explains how one brand of human got wiped out while the other stayed).

gaspode:
kerpal32: Yeah well, the same exact thing can be said about PZ Meyers. sheesh.

understanding and belief in evolutionary theory != atheism


Not really. One can argue that PZ is wrong, and many do, but one cannot argue that he does not understand the topic or that he lacks knowledge of it, you can only argue with his conclusions and logic. Ignorance is not a viable accusation in a case like that.

People_are_Idiots: Oh, so gravity is a theory? How bout motion? They were theories before they became law. :) Don't worry, I do believe evolution explains the how.

And, even though you agree with us we are still going to correct your flawed understanding of science. Its a shame that so many schools and bad teachers have taught it this way. There is no Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law progression in science. As a matter of fact it is the Theory of Gravity.

Scientific Law: A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always applies under the same conditions. Unlike a theory a scientific law is an observation, it contains no model or explanation of the phenomenon.

So there is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation but there is also the Theory of Gravity. There are laws that are part of the theory of evolution, which would cover things like inheritance of traits but the theory as a whole is a model that explains those observations.

There never was a progression where you study some phenomenon and propose a theory that then becomes law. In fact scientific laws tend to precede theories. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation preceded the modern Theory of Gravity for instance.

The entire debate comes down to two issues: 1) creationists rejecting anything scientific that appears to conflict with what they believe, and 2) creationists being extremely uncomfortable with scientific theories that appear to explain giant mysteries without a clear need for a divine origin.

Evolution threatens creationist views in two ways. It threatens young-earth creationism by describing a far longer timescale. More generally, it provides an explanation for complex organisms developing according to natural laws, without an obvious need for divine intervention at any stage.

Related to this, although evolution does not pretend to explain the actual origin of life, it does comport with scientific theories that do, meaning that the origin of life also has no obvious need for divine intervention.

Intelligent Design is a notion that essentially says that God is responsible for evolution. That's romantic, but unnecessary. More to the point, it's unscientific, which is why it doesn't belong in classrooms. But that does not also mean that it's untrue.

Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious. That is, science doesn't expressly discount the divine (even though many scientists may do so individually on a personal level), nor validate anything divine (even though many scientists are deeply faithful). The precepts of science are about testable physical evidence. By definition, divinity cannot be tested scientifically. Science therefore cannot prove or disprove divinity, and so cannot dismiss it -- NOR validate it, for the same reasons. Science can show that a skull is four million years old, but cannot say that proves there is or is not any divine power involved in that testable piece of evidence.

The fact that some scientific findings appear to conflict with some religious teachings may be disappointing or frustrating to some people, but from a scientific perspective, it's irrelevant. The testable evidence of religious theories is rarely sufficient to counter scientific ones. Moreover, the fact that science is limited to verifiable physical evidence means that science does not explain everything, and so cannot effectively prove or disprove many religious notions. The origin of matter and energy (the universe), for example, remains unexplained scientifically; but the fact that (many conflicting) religious theories of this origin exist does not suggest that science is more likely to be wrong on this or any other subject. It is as fair to ask why any given religious theory should be assumed to be more likely than any other, given that testable physical evidence for any of them is sorely lacking.

In empirical terms, much of reality is clearly validated by science. Anyone who takes a plane or uses the Internet must accept the evidence that certain theories readily prove themselves every day. To date, divine flight or telecommunication absent any agent available in natural law has yet to be clearly demonstrated. Even some mind-bending scientific theories have been verified by demonstrable experiments. Just as one example, atomic clocks placed on long-distance, high-altitude flights verified that time does go slower at a greater distance from a gravity well, validating Einstein's model of gravitational distortion of space-time.

So it's not that science 'proves' the Bible is wrong. It doesn't, and can't. But it does show that certain interpretations of that text do not comport with apparent reality. That also doesn't prove that God's a cheeky bastard who's having a go at us by making us 'discover' crazy 'evidence,' or planting 'ancient' bones as some sort of cosmic practical joke. What it does show is that one certain way of understanding reality, science, is commonly inconsistent with certain forms of divine understanding of the same reality.

From a scientific perspective, religion is unprovable. Which is not the same as saying that it's incorrect (nonfactual) or wrong (immoral or ill-reasoned). Even in scientific terms, it's entirely possible that everything is divine, and science is only one way of looking at a massively complex reality, like the blind man who feels only the elephant's massive back leg, and so does not reveal the whole picture, and may only provide an accurate but inadequate perspective.

That said, science has done a spectacular job so far not only of explaining the reality we perceive, but also posing new ways of exploring it, leading to even greater understanding. While it's had many stumbles along the way, it's also self-critical and thus self-correcting (a distinct difference from many though not all religious methods), and is responsible for the vast majority of all our modern knowledge and works.

Rationally, then, it is not science that needs to accommodate unprovable notions. Rather, some religious notions should perhaps be reconsidered. Many modern religions enfold provable science without dismissing divinity, thus finding no conflict.

Religion really only gets into these disputes when it purports to explain the physical mechanisms of nature. Where it does not, no conflict exists. There's nothing in science to say that natural laws are not of divine origin, only that they work in certain provable ways.

I wish I could remember who it was who said that science explains WHAT and HOW, and religion explains WHY. Contrary to the personal sensibilities of many religious and scientific people, these are not incompatible perspectives.

GeorgeBurns: If evolutionary theory (in the scientific sense) is true, then it must deal with this issue; As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

Selection operates not only at the level of individual, but groups of individuals.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Related to this, although evolution does not pretend to explain the actual origin of life, it does comport with scientific theories that do, meaning that the origin of life also has no obvious need for divine intervention.

Just because I feel like nitpicking, I always find this explanation a little wanting, mostly because it isn't quite true. While in general the theory of evolution doesn't require a particular explanation for the origin of life I would argue that the various hypotheses for abiogenesis are actually now under the umbrella of the theory of evolution. Its just that the transition from chemical to biological evolution is a little fuzzy. After all it is primarily people who would describe themselves as evolutionary biologists or molecular evolutionists who are primarily interested in that area of research.

I guess I am pedantic but I think that the pat "evolution != abiogenesis" rebuttal is a little well, incomplete. :)

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I wish I could remember who it was who said that science explains WHAT and HOW, and religion explains WHY. Contrary to the personal sensibilities of many religious and scientific people, these are not incompatible perspectives.

True, although some of us would just question whether the Why is even a meaningful question. Obviously for some people it is, for many of us it probably isn't.

gorgor: Forbidden subject is forbidden.

Those curious why it is forbidden should re-read the posting rules. (Of course, everyone should re-read the posting rules, even if they aren't curious.)

RemyDuron: My point was the line between "artificial" selection and "natural" selection is not all that clear.

Mainly because "artifice" is poorly defined.

abb3w: Oh, and I suppose it's time to drag this out again....


8) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.


How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

entropic_existence: While in general the theory of evolution doesn't require a particular explanation for the origin of life I would argue that the various hypotheses for abiogenesis are actually now under the umbrella of the theory of evolution.

In the broadest sense of evolution as "change via the second law of thermodynamics".

Persnickety: How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

Well, an upper bound of 10% of the population expressing it would seem to be "rare".
That aside, a mechanism similar to the Grandmother effect would allow for it.

Actually, that ought not be hard to model computationally....

abb3w: Persnickety: How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

Well, an upper bound of 10% of the population expressing it would seem to be "rare".
That aside, a mechanism similar to the Grandmother effect would allow for it.

Actually, that ought not be hard to model computationally...

Pretty much, and of course it is likely controlled by multiple genetic elements and so is an emergent property. Some of those genes may enhance fertility for instance. It is when you get the combination all at once that it is expressed as homosexuality.

entropic_existence: abb3w: Persnickety: How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

Well, an upper bound of 10% of the population expressing it would seem to be "rare".

Over thousands of generations of people with the trait not mating, 10% seems extremely high.


That aside, a mechanism similar to the Grandmother effect would allow for it.

Replace would with could. You linked to an unproven hypothesis.


Actually, that ought not be hard to model computationally...

Pretty much, and of course it is likely controlled by multiple genetic elements and so is an emergent property. Some of those genes may enhance fertility for instance. It is when you get the combination all at once that it is expressed as homosexuality.

Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

Persnickety: Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

We can point to a)the ubiquity of same-sex sexual activity throughout the animal kingdom and b) existence of some genes that effect this behaviour in other animals to say that there is definitely a genetic component to homosexuality.

Nothing in biology and human behaviour is an either or proposition, virtually all of it is a combination of genetics, environment, and experience but there are certainly strong genetic predispositions at work in both human gender identity and sexual preferences.

Eh, evolution is pretty simple and obviously true, but why can it not coexist with religion? Maybe it's because I'm not religious, but why is it so difficult to imagine that evolution is happening and God is in charge of it? Young Earth creationists (who are a tiny majority) aside, this isn't out of line with any biblical beliefs.

entropic_existence: I guess I am pedantic but I think that the pat "evolution != abiogenesis" rebuttal is a little well, incomplete. :)

I disagree strongly. Evolution is merely a theory to explain the progression of life (a simple concept) while abiogenesis attempts to answer the big question of how life actually started, which is far more complicated.

Persnickety: Over thousands of generations of people with the trait not mating, 10% seems extremely high.

Sickle-cell anemia runs 30% carrier, implying about 10% with a double dose and who thus are unlikely to live long enough to mate. So, no, not really.

Perhaps you're trying to ask why it isn't rarer?

Persnickety: Replace would with could. You linked to an unproven hypothesis.

No, keep "would", because I paired it with the verb "allow", not "prove".

IIR, the existence of the phenomenon is fairly well established, in that a maternal grandmother substantially improves odds of survival from birth to end of adolescence. [EG; feel free to search Google Scholar for a better link] The question remains as to what the mechanism is, but a similar mechanism is gay uncles/aunts would allow a similar result.

The observation doesn't prove a similar mechanism indeed underlies homosexuality, nor any genetic link; it just reduces the expected surprise of such a mechanism/link turning up.

Persnickety: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait.

Ignores "In a similar search restricted to the X chromosome, brothers concordant for the trait of homosexual orientation showed significant excess allele sharing (33 out of 40 cases) in the region Xq28, suggesting the involvement of a genetic factor influencing at least the particular subtype of homosexuality studied", along with around a half century of other peer reviewed results.

You're not interesting enough for me to enjoy the time required to insult you with the precision you deserve, so I'll leave that to others.

Cromar: Eh, evolution is pretty simple and obviously true, but why can it not coexist with religion?

Depends whether you're talking in terms of philosophy or anthropology, along with whether you care about whether your logic is on a non-trivial lattice.

Cromar: Maybe it's because I'm not religious, but why is it so difficult to imagine that evolution is happening and God is in charge of it?

"Imagine" is different from "infer as probable".

Cromar: Young Earth creationists (who are a tiny majority)

33% of the US population assert scriptural inerrancy. This seems neither "tiny" nor "majority".

Cromar: Evolution is merely a theory

Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

Cromar: abiogenesis attempts to answer the big question of how life actually started, which is far more complicated

The big question is defining "life". Since life is possible, "how life got started" just gets reduced to the statistical mechanics expression of the second law of thermodynamics, along with a few details of chemistry.

entropic_existence: Persnickety: Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

We can point to a)the ubiquity of same-sex sexual activity throughout the animal kingdom

While there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal kingdom, most those same animals or clones are also willing to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity when exposed to different environmental conditions. At best that points to bisexuality, not homosexuality in the strictist sense. It also suggests that same-sex activity is a learned behavior.


and b) existence of some genes that effect this behaviour in other animals to say that there is definitely a genetic component to homosexuality.

Nothing in biology and human behaviour is an either or proposition, virtually all of it is a combination of genetics, environment, and experience but there are certainly strong genetic predispositions at work in both human gender identity and sexual preferences.

If there are strong genetic predispositions for sexual preference, we are again back with #8 being a problem: Such strong predispositions should become more and more rare with each generation until only weak predispositions are left - unless it's like Sickle Cell Anemia where the trait has a proven link to some other factor that aids in passing along the trait.

Mamoru and TheyCallThisWork win the prize for the best answers. NinjaKirby wins worst place, as usual.

One more example of humans 'affecting the course' of evolution; once upon a time, squirel predetors ran on 4 legs who could zig zag and were deliberate. Now, a lot of squirels are killed by a 'preditor'on 4 wheels who is unthinking and moves in generally straight lines. The squirrel who uses the old math to dodge the 4 wheeled predetor and tries to dodge with zig zags gets smooshed. The squirel who runs straight across the road quickly lives to pass on their genes. Due to urban sprawl, one day all squirels will use straight running to avoid being killed. When humans go extinct, so will squirels because they'll try to escape the foxes bu running straight, and that won't work for shiat.

GeorgeBurns: NinjaKirby wins worst place, as usual.

Cromar: Eh, evolution is pretty simple and obviously true, but why can it not coexist with religion? Maybe it's because I'm not religious, but why is it so difficult to imagine that evolution is happening and God is in charge of it? Young Earth creationists (who are a tiny majority) aside, this isn't out of line with any biblical beliefs.

It depends what you mean by "in charge of it." If you mean in charge as in micromanaging, directing, or in any way controlling the process of evolution then that would conflict quite drastically with what we know. If on the other hand you mean more along the lines of what most Catholics believe (Theistic Evolution) which is that God simply created Evolution by designing the physical laws of the Universe then it doesn't necessarily have to conflict no.

Cromar: I disagree strongly. Evolution is merely a theory to explain the progression of life (a simple concept) while abiogenesis attempts to answer the big question of how life actually started, which is far more complicated.

I think you missed my point. I would also disagree on the relative complicatedness of the origins of life versus the evolution of life once it existed. The more we study the more they entertwine, with one being a natural outgrowth of the other. The same basic principles that exist at the heart of how life evolved are also at play in our hypotheses about how life originated. The line between the evolution of self-replicating chemicals and self-replicating life is a fuzzy one, probably because there is no good definition for exactly what life is.

While the theory of evolution does not depend on any particular mechanism for the origin of life, the origin of life is without a doubt a question of great interest (and being worked on) by evolutionary biologists, particularly Molecular Evolutionists (which is the field I am in). Thats the great thing about scientific theories, individual peices within them can be unclear or change radically without the whole being wrong. Abiogenesis, certainly as a research program and certainly the currently best supported hypotheses, all fall within the broader theory of evolution.

Persnickety: If there are strong genetic predispositions for sexual preference, we are again back with #8 being a problem: Such strong predispositions should become more and more rare with each generation until only weak predispositions are left - unless it's like Sickle Cell Anemia where the trait has a proven link to some other factor that aids in passing along the trait.

You might want to do some reading on complex multi-locus genetic traits then. It isn't straight forward or clear cut and is much more complex then relatively simple traits like Sickle Cell where carriers have a significant enough advantage.

Persnickety: While there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal kingdom, most those same animals or clones are also willing to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity when exposed to different environmental conditions. At best that points to bisexuality, not homosexuality in the strictist sense. It also suggests that same-sex activity is a learned behavior.

Bisexual behaviour is very prevalent in the animal kingdom but I was referring to strictly homosexual behaviour. I am aware of at least two very well done studies in both Drosophila and Sheep studying males with an exclusive preference for other males. With drosophila you put them all together and they form conga lines of male flies attempting to mate with other males. These males will totally ignore females, same goes with the sheep. Both of these studies contributed to a whole "gay gene" controversy several years ago when someone suggested that it could lead to a "cure" for homosexuality.

And BTW, even if the majority of studies were limited to bisexual behaviour (which they aren't) it doesn't actually suggest that it is learned versus acquired behaviour.

And again we get into whole different ball games when we start talking about animals that live in complex social groups like humans do. Which is where things like the Grandmother Hypothesis and various ideas that account for how sociality impacts evolution, come in to play.

GeorgeBurns: One more example of humans 'affecting the course' of evolution; once upon a time, squirel predetors ran on 4 legs who could zig zag and were deliberate. Now, a lot of squirels are killed by a 'preditor'on 4 wheels who is unthinking and moves in generally straight lines. The squirrel who uses the old math to dodge the 4 wheeled predetor and tries to dodge with zig zags gets smooshed. The squirel who runs straight across the road quickly lives to pass on their genes. Due to urban sprawl, one day all squirels will use straight running to avoid being killed. When humans go extinct, so will squirels because they'll try to escape the foxes bu running straight, and that won't work for shiat.

Humans, being a part of nature, effect evolution of course. I think it is the "course of evolution" ninjakirby had issues with. There is no course because evolution is absolutely dependent on historical contingency and takes place on a fitness landscape that is constantly shifting and changing because everything is dynamic. No one is denying that humans have a large impact on the selective pressures and fitness of other organisms on this planet, including our own.

Persnickety: entropic_existence: Persnickety: Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

We can point to a)the ubiquity of same-sex sexual activity throughout the animal kingdom

While there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal kingdom, most those same animals or clones are also willing to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity when exposed to different environmental conditions. At best that points to bisexuality, not homosexuality in the strictist sense. It also suggests that same-sex activity is a learned behavior.


and b) existence of some genes that effect this behaviour in other animals to say that there is definitely a genetic component to homosexuality.

Nothing in biology and human behaviour is an either or proposition, virtually all of it is a combination of genetics, environment, and experience but there are certainly strong genetic predispositions at work in both human gender identity and sexual preferences.

If there are strong genetic predispositions for sexual preference, we are again back with #8 being a problem: Such strong predispositions should become more and more rare with each generation until only weak predispositions are left - unless it's like Sickle Cell Anemia where the trait has a proven link to some other factor that aids in passing along the trait.

Your problem is that you are assuming that homosexuality, like sickle cell anemia, is controlled by a single gene. This is almost certainly not the case. The best current understanding of the genetics of human sexuality is that it is multigenomic, and homosexual tendencies are expressed only when the correct set of genes is present in the individual.

The thing is, we also know that it is virtually unheard of for a gene to do only one thing, so all those genes that influence the presence or absence of homosexual behaviors in humans also have other effects. As long as the net benefit of those other effects is positive, then the genes will be conserved.

And even that's an oversimplification. It ignores drift, and gene sequence conservation (i.e. when a gene is conserved because it overlaps or is adjacent to a critical gene on the chromosome).

Frankly, the tenor of your arguments (which are old conservative talking points, btw) demonstrates either profound ignorance of the subject or else definite bias. For now I am willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt, and suggest you go do the background reading to learn the details of the outline of the topic that abb3w and e_e have provided and that I have added to.

And if I am wrong, and you are looking for excuses to condemn homosexuality because it is a 'choice' which you can therefore categorize as immoral, let me ask you this, then: When did you choose to be heterosexual? Can you choose to be attracted to your own sex, even as an experiment? If you can't, why do you assume others can?

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious.

The exact same observation can be made about 95% to 99% of the Fark atheists regularly post.

KiltedBastich: Your problem is that you are assuming that homosexuality, like sickle cell anemia, is controlled by a single gene. This is almost certainly not the case. The best current understanding of the genetics of human sexuality is that it is multigenomic, and homosexual tendencies are expressed only when the correct set of genes is present in the individual.

The thing is, we also know that it is virtually unheard of for a gene to do only one thing, so all those genes that influence the presence or absence of homosexual behaviors in humans also have other effects. As long as the net benefit of those other effects is positive, then the genes will be conserved.


I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

abb3w: Sickle-cell anemia runs 30% carrier, implying about 10% with a double dose and who thus are unlikely to live long enough to mate. So, no, not really.

Perhaps you're trying to ask why it isn't rarer?

The Sickle-cell trait provides a proven resistance to malaria and as such aids in the survival of the individual so that the individual is likely to pass on the trait. There is no correspondingly proven beneficial effect for the homosexual trait.


IIR, the existence of the phenomenon is fairly well established, in that a maternal grandmother substantially improves odds of survival from birth to end of adolescence. [EG; feel free to search Google Scholar for a better link] The question remains as to what the mechanism is, but a similar mechanism is gay uncles/aunts would allow a similar result.

The observation doesn't prove a similar mechanism indeed underlies homosexuality, nor any genetic link; it just reduces the expected surprise of such a mechanism/link turning up.

Of course there could be a link, but that doesn't mean there is one. In a similar vein, I can claim that there is a well known connection between one's environment and what stimulates sexual attraction. Some well documented environmental factors: Polynesian culture finds overweight people attractive. In China men were turned on by a woman who has very small feet. Ugandans prefer their women large but their men extremely thin. In Japan, well, let's leave them out this! Perhaps homosexuality has a similar environmental factor.

My point is: it is unscientific to claim one way or the other is correct until we know for sure. My guess: same-sex sexual attraction is a mixture of both environment and genetics.


Persnickety: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait.

Ignores "In a similar search restricted to the X chromosome, brothers concordant for the trait of homosexual orientation showed significant excess allele sharing (33 out of 40 cases) in the region Xq28, suggesting the involvement of a genetic factor influencing at least the particular subtype of homosexuality studied", along with around a half century of other peer reviewed results.

And this clashes somewhat with Bailey & Pillards 1991 study of twins that found only a 52% concordance amongst identical twins for sexual orientation. This strongly suggests an environmental factor at work.


You're not interesting enough for me to enjoy the time required to insult you with the precision you deserve, so I'll leave that to others.

*sigh* So much for civil discourse. If you feel you must resort to insults, please just do go away.

kerpal32: I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

- Its unlikely in any human to be controlled exclusively by a single gene, while this may be the case in some other animals they are almost exclusively linked to genes involved in pheromones. I won't say it is impossible, just unlikely mostly do to the complex social interactions involved in human sexuality.

- Multi-genic. This has the most support given all we know about sexuality in humans as well as the genetics of homosexuality in other animal species. for complex traits multiple genes are usually involved.

- learned behaviour. It depends on how plastic you think human sexuality is, although I would argue that there are probably still background genetic effects at play. Learned homosexual behaviour that we can nail down would be like that in Ancient Greece and other cultures where it is a sort of limited homosexuality and even then certainly not all of the population participated.

- Conditional/Environmental - depends on what you mean by this I suppose. It seems to overlap with biochemically influenced and again, the background genetic influence can't really be discounted.

- Biochemically Influenced - Probably plays some role. But again... genetic background is likely still important

- Personal preference - depends how much personal preference you think it is possible to have that isn't explained by what was already discussed.

It is probably a combination of things in people with multiple genes playing a role (not everyone having the same combination of alleles though). This sets potential/preference but doesn't absolutely dictate anything which leaves room for environment and experience to play a role as well.

kerpal32: KiltedBastich: Your problem is that you are assuming that homosexuality, like sickle cell anemia, is controlled by a single gene. This is almost certainly not the case. The best current understanding of the genetics of human sexuality is that it is multigenomic, and homosexual tendencies are expressed only when the correct set of genes is present in the individual.

The thing is, we also know that it is virtually unheard of for a gene to do only one thing, so all those genes that influence the presence or absence of homosexual behaviors in humans also have other effects. As long as the net benefit of those other effects is positive, then the genes will be conserved.


I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

It is definitely influenced by all of these things. It's very important to remember that our use of the words homosexuality and heterosexuality actually is very misleading, because it creates the perception of a binary dualism, when in fact the reality is much more nuanced. Most people are not in fact 100% either homosexual or heterosexual in terms of strict sexual preferences, but often they are socialized to act as if they were.

That doesn't change the fact that those underlying genetic tendencies have a very strong influence on the sexual preference developed. Allow me to explain a bit more.

There's a concept used a lot in psychology of the 'threshhold'; it applies to a great many things including many forms of mental illness and epilepsy, as well as a great many behavioural idiosyncracies.

The idea is that human psychology is extremely plastic, and that while you are born with a set of tendencies, these are adapted to fit your environment and circumstance. However, the way your psychology expresses itself is then a function of the interaction between the two. Generally, this means that in order for a particular behaviour to emerge, you must be exposed to a sufficient stimulus to cross a threshold for the emergence of that behavior.

This is where genetics comes in. For someone with a low threshold, nearly anything can be enough to trigger the emergence of the behavior in question. Conversely, someone with a very high threshold might never manifest the behavior, because no conceivable stimulus is high enough to overcome the threshold.

This is why twin studies do not disply complete agreement on the development of psychological characteristics, because no matter how similar their genetics and environments, even twins have highly divergent life experiences, and it is those experiences that trigger the emergence of genetically predisposed patterns of behaviour. These can be cultural, physical, biochemical, or just about any other stimulus from the environment.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the emergence of such psychological phenomena are wholly involuntary! No one chooses to become schizophrenic or manic-depressive, but sometimes it happens. Similary, it is almost impossible to choose what to be sexually attracted to. Just ask those poor damned bastards who end up attracted to children. We might loathe them as monsters, but many of them would give anything to change what attracts them, and cannot do so.

Of course, this is an overview, and it's also highly simplified. The important thing to remember is that what we consider free will is often nowhere near as free as we think it is. Sure, you are free to pursue what interests or attracts you, but have you ever stopped to consider why you are interested or attracted in the first place? We have far less choice in terms of what we want to be doing than we realize. I would like to be able to enjoy lobster. Yet every time I try to eat it, I find it distasteful. I have never found manual labor satisfying, I have never been able to appreciate most country music, death metal or rap, and I have never seen a man (that I recognized as such) that I wanted to sleep with.

Choosing to act on your wants and desires is one thing. Choosing your wants and desires is much more difficult.

_{/Montreal has some really convincing drag queens.}

KiltedBastich: And if I am wrong, and you are looking for excuses to condemn homosexuality because it is a 'choice' which you can therefore categorize as immoral, let me ask you this, then: When did you choose to be heterosexual? Can you choose to be attracted to your own sex, even as an experiment? If you can't, why do you assume others can?

It's definitely a choice.


kerpal32: I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

In humans, all kinds of factors come into play, but the "nurture" aspects would seem to mainly be pointed towards societal prevalence. After all, how many of the other "nearly all animals" share the same aspects and degrees of "nurture" that override nature?

In the end, of course, it doesn't matter. Detractors are busy trying to paint it "100% choice" so that it sits right with their scripture, not argue the finer points of which influences affect which individuals/groups/cultures, and to what degree.

It's no great surprise that fundamentalist christians who deny evolution would insist that they understand it. Moderate Christians who believe in the soul probably think they understand cognitive neurobiology, too, and that it's wrong about the material nature of cognition.

entropic_existence: You might want to do some reading on complex multi-locus genetic traits then. It isn't straight forward or clear cut and is much more complex then relatively simple traits like Sickle Cell where carriers have a significant enough advantage.

Yes, you are undoubtably right. With multiple genes contributing as well as closely linked (but otherwise unrelated) alleles on a single chromosome, things get very messy indeed. It seems that it is not only possible but probable to pass along alleles that on their own or in a group may be detrimental to propagating the next generation but because they are closely linked to so many other pro-propogation traits, on average they tend to perpetuate more often than not.

I am forced to conclude that the definition of evolution as described above, in particular point #8, does not adequately describe evolution since it ignores the complexities of genetics.


Bisexual behaviour is very prevalent in the animal kingdom but I was referring to strictly homosexual behaviour. I am aware of at least two very well done studies in both Drosophila and Sheep studying males with an exclusive preference for other males. With drosophila you put them all together and they form conga lines of male flies attempting to mate with other males. These males will totally ignore females, same goes with the sheep. Both of these studies contributed to a whole "gay gene" controversy several years ago when someone suggested that it could lead to a "cure" for homosexuality.

Since human sexual behavior is far more complex than sheep or fruit flies, it seems unlikely there could be a simple genetic "cure" for homosexuality, assuming such a thing would be desirable in the first place.


And BTW, even if the majority of studies were limited to bisexual behaviour (which they aren't) it doesn't actually suggest that it is learned versus acquired behaviour.

However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.


And again we get into whole different ball games when we start talking about animals that live in complex social groups like humans do. Which is where things like the Grandmother Hypothesis and various ideas that account for how sociality impacts evolution, come in to play.

I suspect the human social animal is just to complex to be compared to animal societies. Witness the legions of Farkers who proclaim themselves "child-free" in threads about children. Most of them don't even want to be around their own nieces or nephews, which somewhat deflates the whole Grandmother (or Aunt/Uncle) Hypothesis.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: "Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious."

I agree. But that does not prevent science from coming to conclusions which discredit religious claims.

For example, Scientology doctrine holds that the Universe is many trillions of years old and that the Earth is nearly as old, having been named Teegeeack at the time. Science has, in the course of investigating the age of the universe, discovered this to be false.

Science is not anti-scientologist, yet it has come to a conclusion which discredits Scientologist doctrine simply because that doctrine contradicts reality and science is in the business of investigating reality.

Similarly, the Christian religion holds that human consciousness is separate from the brain or at least extricable in the form of an immortal soul. This contradicts what science has discovered about consciousness, namely that it is a material phenomenon produced by the coordinated interplay between the various specialized portions of our material brains, and that you can no more process conscious thought outside of a brain than you can process computer instructions without a CPU, ram, hard drive (and their coordinated interaction.) Software can indeed be transmitted, but it requires hardware to execute.


If you feel that science has gone too far in this regard, creationists agree, and would probably welcome your contribution to their efforts to have cognitive neurobiology stricken from textbooks.

Persnickety: I am forced to conclude that the definition of evolution as described above, in particular point #8, does not adequately describe evolution since it ignores the complexities of genetics.

The list is meant as a summary of the main points of evolution and a very broad/generalized one at that. That said it isn't really inadequate, it is just geared to a general audience and doesn't attempt to delve into the complexities because, quite frankly the majority of people reading it wouldn't have the foundation necessary for the deeper complexities. But point 8 is still actually correct. As an observation traits that tend to improve the fitness of the individual by making them more likely to have offspring are more likely to be passed on, even in complex multi-locus interactions.

Persnickety: Since human sexual behavior is far more complex than sheep or fruit flies, it seems unlikely there could be a simple genetic "cure" for homosexuality, assuming such a thing would be desirable in the first place.

I agree. The latetr point is why it was controversial. As for the former the majority of people reading the news don't know much genetics.

Persnickety: However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.

No one, certainly not I, ever denied that environment plays no role. Kilted provided a good explanation about this above. What most of us were refuting was the learned behaviour/choice description which tends to relegate genetics to a minor/inconsequential role as opposed to a strong one.

Persnickety: I suspect the human social animal is just to complex to be compared to animal societies. Witness the legions of Farkers who proclaim themselves "child-free" in threads about children. Most of them don't even want to be around their own nieces or nephews, which somewhat deflates the whole Grandmother (or Aunt/Uncle) Hypothesis.

I disagree, comparative studies are quite enlightening but then again I was never much for the thought that humans are somehow vastly different from the rest of the living world.

Persnickety: However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.

It's important to remember the context here. They are starting with twins where at least one of the twins is homosexual. So in those cases, in more than half of cases where one of two identical twins is homosexual, so is the other. Fraternal twins had a between one in four and one in five chance of also being homosexual. For same sex adoptive siblings, the rate is about one in ten.

Well, if you do a check of the studies on the general prevalence of homosexuality, the numbers vary between 1% and 35% depending on whether you are talking exclusive homosexual behaviour or else just some incidental homosexual activity, including adolescent experimentation. The wikipedia page has links to a number of excellent sources.

A good number seems to be roughly 4-5% from comparing those studies. So what this means is that identical twins have a chances of having the same sexual orientation more than an order of magnitude higher than any two random people, fraternal twins are five times more likely to share their sexual orientation, and same sex children raised by the same parents are twice as likely to share the same orientation.

This is what I was talking about with thresholds earlier. If you have similar genetic tendencies and have had similar life experiences, you may get similar behavioral expressions. The more similar, the better the chances, but it's never guaranteed. There are simply too many random factors in play that will differentiate any two people, no matter how otherwise similar.

Zamboro: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: "Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious."

I agree. But that does not prevent science from coming to conclusions which discredit religious claims.

For example, Scientology doctrine holds that the Universe is many trillions of years old and that the Earth is nearly as old, having been named Teegeeack at the time. Science has, in the course of investigating the age of the universe, discovered this to be false.

Science is not anti-scientologist, yet it has come to a conclusion which discredits Scientologist doctrine simply because that doctrine contradicts reality and science is in the business of investigating reality.

Similarly, the Christian religion holds that human consciousness is separate from the brain or at least extricable in the form of an immortal soul. This contradicts what science has discovered about consciousness, namely that it is a material phenomenon produced by the coordinated interplay between the various specialized portions of our material brains, and that you can no more process conscious thought outside of a brain than you can process computer instructions without a CPU, ram, hard drive (and their coordinated interaction.) Software can indeed be transmitted, but it requires hardware to execute.


If you feel that science has gone too far in this regard, creationists agree, and would probably welcome your contribution to their efforts to have cognitive neurobiology stricken from textbooks.

I'm unclear on what point you're trying to make that I did not also try to make in my post that you're replying to.

My point in the statement you cite is that science does not intentionally attack religious claims, because it is not equipped to address them. A bit later (it's really not that long a post, I think), I point out that science does arrive at findings and conclusions which contradict some religious holdings on nature, and that while this may be disappointing for some people who hold those religious views, it doesn't make sense to attack science over it, since science is not operating in the same rational realm. If a religious view appears to be contradicted by a scientific finding, then in scientific terms it makes much more sense to redress the religious view rather than the scientific one.

Finally, I point out that the only reason these conflicts arise is because of the unfortunate and probably misguided attempt of some faith traditions to describe nature according to doctrinal precepts. The former can be tested scientifically, the latter not. So when a contradiction arises, most scientists are just going to shrug. Religion would be much wiser to stick to moralism and human philosophy, and stay out of science, an arena they are not equipped to debate in. What some faiths say are examples of science meddling in religion are rationally the opposite.

Yet the same people that champion evolution in this country can't seem to grasp the concept of how this theory applies to economics. Same goes for the other side of the spectrum as well.

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/noplhg
(copy and paste)

entropic_existence: The list is meant as a summary of the main points of evolution and a very broad/generalized one at that. That said it isn't really inadequate, it is just geared to a general audience and doesn't attempt to delve into the complexities because, quite frankly the majority of people reading it wouldn't have the foundation necessary for the deeper complexities. But point 8 is still actually correct. As an observation traits that tend to improve the fitness of the individual by making them more likely to have offspring are more likely to be passed on, even in complex multi-locus interactions.

Hmm, if point 8 stands I should be able to ask this question: Given the assumption that homosexuality is an inherited trait, from a scientific perspective is it a trait that tends to:
A) promote propogation of itself and thus should increase
B) discourage propagation of itself and thus should decrease
C) neither promote nor discourage propogation and thus no change
D) either promote or discourage depending on environmental factors
E) We just don't know yet
F) I missed the boat and am asking the wrong question. :)

As for the former the majority of people reading the news don't know much genetics.

Time to make biology and genetics manditory in high school, I think. How can we expect our elected politicians to make policy about that which they do not understand?

"Such a degree of learning [should be] given to every member of the society as will enable him to read, to judge and to vote understandingly on what is passing." - Thomas Jefferson


Persnickety: I suspect the human social animal is just to complex to be compared to animal societies. Witness the legions of Farkers who proclaim themselves "child-free" in threads about children. Most of them don't even want to be around their own nieces or nephews, which somewhat deflates the whole Grandmother (or Aunt/Uncle) Hypothesis.

I disagree, comparative studies are quite enlightening but then again I was never much for the thought that humans are somehow vastly different from the rest of the living world.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Most animal societies and members can be described with terms like "Guard Bee" or "Alpha Male" or "Helper Aunt". Humans have so many different ways of organizing themselves and have societies and sub societies so many orders of magnitude larger and interconnected that even the individuals themselves don't have a full understanding of where they fit in. Even if those infinite number of monkeys ever did succeed in writing Hamlet, not a one in all their variety would have any hope of understanding it. They would have to evolve into something quite different.

KiltedBastich: Persnickety: However Bailey & Pillard's 1991 study of identical twin human found no more than a 52% concordance for sexual orientation. For same sex fraternal twins the rate is 22%. For same sex adoptive siblings it's 11%. To me this points to both genetic and environmental factors.

It's important to remember the context here. They are starting with twins where at least one of the twins is homosexual. So in those cases, in more than half of cases where one of two identical twins is homosexual, so is the other.

Would it be fair to say then that since 48% of identical twins have different sexual orientations within a given pair that homosexuality is roughly half genetic and half environmental?

This is what I was talking about with thresholds earlier. If you have similar genetic tendencies and have had similar life experiences, you may get similar behavioral expressions. The more similar, the better the chances, but it's never guaranteed. There are simply too many random factors in play that will differentiate any two people, no matter how otherwise similar.

Since as you say there are thresholds for a certain behavior, are there also thresholds for cessation of that behavior? A simple example: Thumb sucking or nail biting. Something triggers people to start but later, some of those people succeed in stopping those behaviors. A more apropo example: the proverbial LUG, lesbian until graduation. Something about college trips a threshold for lesbianism. Something about graduation trips another threshold that stops it.

BTW, I'm not advocating that anything of the sort should be done about homosexuality. I realize this is a political sacred cow, hot potato and litmus test all rolled into one for both sides. I'm only interested in the scientific side of these questions. I'd hate to live in a world where inquiry and research were halted because it failed to line up with someone's political views.

Persnickety: F) I missed the boat and am asking the wrong question. :)

This one. :) Point 8 is using trait in the sort of pre-modern genetics usage where a trait could be boiled down to a single genetic element. In this case homosexuality isn't one gene but is instead a complex trait that arises out of the interplay of several genes. So 8 really refers to those particular genetic elements that homosexuality arises out of as opposed to homosexuality itself.

Persnickety: Time to make biology and genetics manditory in high school, I think. How can we expect our elected politicians to make policy about that which they do not understand?

I agree, although I'm not sure exactly how much difference it will make. I think it is mandatory for much of school at a basic level. One problem sadly is that not enough talented biologists are attracted to teaching at that level. I once saw statistics on how many high school biology teachers (many of which didn't necessarily specialize in biology at University) where Creationists themselves or just all around poorly educated in some important aspects of biology such as evolution.


"Such a degree of learning [should be] given to every member of the society as will enable him to read, to judge and to vote understandingly on what is passing." - Thomas Jefferson

Its a nice idea, unfortunately I don't think even the citizen of average intelligence can be very well educated on lots of topics today, especially in science. Hopefully though what we should have is every citizen educated enough to have a good base on which to evaluate more complex topics and more importantly, to know what they don't know.

Persnickety: Since as you say there are thresholds for a certain behavior, are there also thresholds for cessation of that behavior? A simple example: Thumb sucking or nail biting. Something triggers people to start but later, some of those people succeed in stopping those behaviors. A more apropo example: the proverbial LUG, lesbian until graduation. Something about college trips a threshold for lesbianism. Something about graduation trips another threshold that stops it.

One problem with this scenario is, that as far as I understand it, female sexuality is actually far more plastic then it is in males, at least on average. At least some good research seems to point in that direction.

I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

Persnickety: C) neither promote nor discourage propogation and thus no change
D) either promote or discourage depending on environmental factors
E) We just don't know yet

Definitely also a lot of E, but some possibilities are themselves a mix of C and D. Note environmental factors for an organism include the prevalence of the trait in relatives and the population overall, and simple Markov-chain based models often have a stable attractor equilibrium (even for non-zero stables). C is also an oversimplification since it neglects accumulation of genetic drift, but that's incidental.

However, I think I may see a point here. The oversimplification is at "an organism's offspring", neglecting that evolution also happens when there is benefit TO RELATIVES, since that may also improve chances for the gene to be passed on to future generations. (Cf. altruism, even when it gets your ass dead.)

So in at least that sense, point 8 oversimplifies. I'll note that for the next revision.

Hairiness creeps into the math quickly in that even with a simple recessive-carrier gene, you have at least five expressions possible (expressed-so-who-cares, carrier with expressed sibling, carrier without expressed sibling, non-carrier with expressed sibling, non-carrier without expressed sibling); and depending on on litter size, the odds on these change. To make matters hairier still, you can consider models where litter size has a range rather than fixed value, whether that range/value is affected by having expressed siblings on either side, to what extent benefit may "stack" from multiple expressed siblings on either side, what alters if male homosexuality is distinct from female and you throw in the option of polygamy....

Persnickety: Time to make biology and genetics manditory in high school, I think. How can we expect our elected politicians to make policy about that which they do not understand?

"Badly?"

Engineering/design is the choosing of goals and evaluation of which choices make achieving the goals most likely, using the understanding of science. For any branch of science, there is usually at least one potential branch of engineering. The limits of the understanding of the science puts limits on the quality of engineering. For anthropology/sociology, the field of engineering is more usually known as "politics".

This also neglects those whose adamant goals require opposition to increasing the median understanding of certain sciences by the population....

GeorgeBurns: I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

Check the Farkives via Google search; you might note ee's more esoteric knowledge is focused more in CompBio and Bioinformatics, while nk is more in the Philosophy and Religious Studies arena.

mizchief: Yet the same people that champion evolution in this country can't seem to grasp the concept of how this theory applies to economics. Same goes for the other side of the spectrum as well.

I'd be interested in hearing your more detailed thoughts on this.

The most successful and widespread complex order on earth after us is Hymenoptera (ants and bees, mostly). Their system is actually very simple: they're organised into families of genetic clones, beholden to helping each other. Functionally, it's this cooperation, not their innate individual qualities, which make them successful.

The earliest hominids had no better a shot at survival than any other species, and there's some belief that we faced extinction under the vagaries of Darwinian competition more than once. It was only our ability to organise and help each other that led to our current dominance -- NOT any inherent better individual qualities. A naked human alone in the wild has a very poor chance of survival, and a group of humans naked and in the wild but not helping each other are as good as alone, with no better chance.

Our success has come from our extended phenotype, the ability to build on each other's strengths. That cooperation is what makes things like Fark possible. Drew Curtis could hardly feed himself, never mind build and run this, without the thousands of years of development behind it, all dependent on cooperation. The harsh reality is that without each other, most of us would die.

So I'll be very interested to hear how evolutionary principles should be successfully applied to economics.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "I'm unclear on what point you're trying to make that I did not also try to make in my post that you're replying to."

Uh oh, perhaps I'd better clarify then.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "My point in the statement you cite is that science does not intentionally attack religious claims, because it is not equipped to address them."

...Except where those claims are testable.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "A bit later (it's really not that long a post, I think), I point out that science does arrive at findings and conclusions which contradict some religious holdings on nature, and that while this may be disappointing for some people who hold those religious views, it doesn't make sense to attack science over it, since science is not operating in the same rational realm."

The suggestion that religion deals with some other, equally valid "rational realm" leads me to wonder whether I missed the post where the existence and validity of this realm was demonstrated.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "If a religious view appears to be contradicted by a scientific finding, then in scientific terms it makes much more sense to redress the religious view rather than the scientific one."

Tell that to the religious. To their credit, moderates eagerly accept evolution but in many cases it's simply a badge they wear that's meant to show off how modern and scientifically concordant they imagine their theological views to be. Most I speak with hadn't even considered that there were doctrinal claims they accepted which still contradict science, and when you bring these contradictions to light they suddenly become far less eager to accommodate science and far more defensive of the supernatural.

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "Finally, I point out that the only reason these conflicts arise is because of the unfortunate and probably misguided attempt of some faith traditions to describe nature according to doctrinal precepts."

Is it misguided? Can you honestly say that the authors of the Old Testament did not, with Genesis, intend to describe in historical narrative how the world and life upon it came to be? Why make that argument for one creation myth, but not all the others? Is it impossible to simply conclude that they were wrong, that both the Old and New Testament are riddled with factual errors as a result of the limited knowledge available to their authors? Or must we continue to make excuses such as "anything factually wrong must be metaphorical", "religion operates in a different rational realm" and so on?

Sylvia Bandersnatch: "The former can be tested scientifically, the latter not. So when a contradiction arises, most scientists are just going to shrug. Religion would be much wiser to stick to moralism and human philosophy, and stay out of science, an arena they are not equipped to debate in. What some faiths say are examples of science meddling in religion are rationally the opposite."

Why would 'religion' (as if it were a single entity?) be wise to stick to moralism and human philosophy? If it is a valid path to knowledge and there is any truth at its root, then why shouldn't it be able to provide factual discoveries about nature as well? The subtext here seems to be "Religions have no factual basis and would do well to stick to areas in which they can hide behind the pretense of subjectivity so that none of their claims will be subject to scientific investigation."

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: So I'll be very interested to hear how evolutionary principles should be successfully applied to economics.

They actually have been for awhile now, and vice versa through their shared love of Game Theory. Game Theory has acted as a conduit for bringing ideas from the Game Theory of economics and then having ideas from Game Theory as applied to evolution back to economics. Look into things like evolutionary stable strategies, of which Nash Equilibria are a subset.

GeorgeBurns: I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

ninjakirby: GeorgeBurns: I think entropic_existence and ninjakirby are the same farker.

I find that funnier than shiat....

one claims to be a PhD candidate, and the other, well..... no where near that "caliber".

/though I do think ninjakirby is also a couple of other aliases on Fark.

kerpal32: I find that funnier than shiat....

one claims to be a PhD candidate, and the other, well..... no where near that "caliber".

Insult or backhanded compliment. Hmmm. Either way my claim is actually quite verifiable

entropic_existence: Insult or backhanded compliment. Hmmm. Either way my claim is actually quite verifiable

I wasn't insulting you. Just making a comment based on knowledge of someone else. Actually, the same observation applies to a few "someones" on Fark.

And yes, I believe you.

entropic_existence: kerpal32: I find that funnier than shiat....

one claims to be a PhD candidate, and the other, well..... no where near that "caliber".

Insult or backhanded compliment. Hmmm. Either way my claim is actually quite verifiable

BTW - I'm really getting a laugh out of this and similar threads while reading excerpts of Hawking's essay addressing Fermi's paradox and colonizing other planets through the equivalent of intelligent design from his Life in the Universe lecture series. (circa 2007)
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4487687 (pops)

BTW - I'm really getting a laugh out of this and similar threads while reading excerpts of Hawking's essay addressing Fermi's paradox and colonizing other planets through the equivalent of intelligent design from his Life in the Universe lecture series. (circa 2007)

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4487687 (pops)