A question for the men/women in this thread discussing memetics: the issue I have with using Creationism as an example of a meme is that, in an evolutionary sense, characteristics that arise and become dominant (or spread) in a population do so because they are useful in some way-- ie, the evolution of wings on bats was incredibly successful because it allowed mammals into a territory they previously did not inhabit, etc (bats comprise 25% of the mammalian species today.) Thus it was a very successful development. But why would Creationism--or most religion, for that matter--though seemingly giving no advantage to the population, propagate so rapidly and continue to do so? I never thought there was room in evolutionary theory for a detrimental character (or meme in memetics) to be somehow so successful in populations.

Let me know if I'm throwing words around here that I know nothing about-- I've got an evolution midterm tomorrow (memetics not covered.)

Chameleon [TotalFark]

Unfortunately, red blood cells have no nucleus, and therefore no DNA, which means no kick-ass T-Rex clones, baby!!

Hmmm. I forgot about that. Is that whole no DNA in red blood cells true for all animals? Also, what about mitochondiral DNA? Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't you be able to at least use it extrapolate the curent evoluntionary distance between this creature and modern orders/families/etc? Or does that only work for direct lineages?

And in any case, the very thought of a revolution in our model of the process of fossilization promises many insights into how life has existed and changed. A very exciting time - something a dogmatist would never say.

OhioKnight: Hey guys, remember Intelligent Design (in the sense that intelligence was active in the development of life on Earth) is not inherently unscientific or ridiculous.

Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there, man. It is both unscientific and unreasonable. Why, you ask?

Firstly, there's no evidence for it. None. Sure, you can make a hypothesis out of it, but you can literally make a hypothesis of anything. It's whether or not it's a reasonable, supportable, disprovable hypothesis that matters, and this is none of those.

Secondly, all it really does, in the end, is avoid the question. Where did this supposed intelligence come from? Did it evolve? Was it aliens from another planet, and if so, how did they come to be? By what conceivable mechanism could this have taken place?

Third, the movement that associates itself with Intelligent Design does not actually advocate "Intelligent Design," they advocate Christian creationism; ID is nothing but a candy-coating facade designed to make their religious faith easier for the courts to swallow.

I never thought there was room in evolutionary theory for a detrimental character (or meme in memetics) to be somehow so successful in populations

Reassertation of false belief leads to cultism and idiocy.

Idiots breed faster due to lack of family planning / worthwhile entertainment.

/stupid people are taking over the world
//re: Dark Ages

3rdLostPassword: More like "'for methodological reasons of rational and logical inquiry', you cannot say 'potato'"

hahahahaha, that was excellent.

Nadezhda: A question for the men/women in this thread discussing memetics: [...] I never thought there was room in evolutionary theory for a detrimental character (or meme in memetics) to be somehow so successful in populations.

Ah, see, your problem is this: you're looking at a meme as an adaptation, not as an independent replicating entity.

See, a meme is no more an adaptation on the part of the host than a virus; it is a separate entity which "lives" in the information passed between individuals. Memes do not seek to benefit their hosts, or at least not directly; like any other parasite or commensalist, they seek first to promote their own transmission and reproduction. Thus, much as the rabies virus causes hosts to bite and thus spread the virus to other hosts via infected saliva, many religions encourage hosts to attempt to convert others, and to have more children to whom they can pass on their faith.

You'll also note that there is as much variety in religion as there is in disease; some spread horizontally, such as those that require celibacy and only appeal to others by apparently offering spiritual reward, whereas others are spread violently, and others rely on almost entirely vertical transmission. Christianity is akin to the flu in that it is extremely prevalent, highly transmissible, highly adaptable, but generally nonlethal.

I highly recommend picking up Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, the seminal work of genetics wherein the concept of the meme as a discrete replicator was introduced.

Please note that I am not advocating nor condemning the notion of memes as being "alive," only describing their behavior.

Technically speaking, a meme is just as alive as a virus, which is just as alive as a computer virus. They are, all three, nothing more than information which encodes altered behavior on the part of the host which promotes the parasite's own reproduction. None is really "alive" as we usually define it; they're sort of a gray area.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Raw_fishFood

There's a slight difference than the Supernatural and math. As in, you can prove that 2+2=4, while you can't prove the existence of any sort of Deity.

I don't think that you can really prove 2+2=4 in math in a way that you would find satisfactory. It's only a half step away from 1+1=2, and that fact is basically by definition.

GorgeousOrifice: Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Um... pardon me if I'm just being dense, but... you are aware that we already made this point repeatedly, right?

Your comment was a brilliantly minimalist satire of the way FARK has seen four religion-evolution flamewars today, right? A cutting comment on the way the same points have been made over and over and over?

/I'm just gonna assume that it was and LOL.
//Just nod and smile, okay?

Yeah. Unfortunately, red blood cells have no nucleus, and therefore no DNA, which means no kick-ass T-Rex clones, baby!!


They do in birds, so probably in dinosaurs too.

I am just curious for those out there who follow the literal word of the Bible, is human slavery ok? Some neocons have admitted that it should be allowed. Where do you stand, because you cannot believe in a literal reading of the Bible and be opposed to slavery.

shipud: They do in birds, so probably in dinosaurs too.

Well, what do you know, I did learn something today!

/flabbergasted

Northern: Where do you stand, because you cannot believe in a literal reading of the Bible and be opposed to slavery.

Haha, wouldn't it be nice if we could just wave some logic at them and tell them that they cannot believe nonsense, and make all this idiocy go away?

Of course they can believe that, man. Humans can believe anything - that's what this whole argument is about. The definition of "faith" is "unsupported belief" or "belief without proof." What makes you think that one more little contradiction between modern life and the Bible is going to change their minds?

Sorry, but the very idea of telling someone you cannot believe is pretty funny. I only wish it worked that way.

Now, you could insist that they could not reasonably assert both that slavery is wrong and that the Bible is literally true and a moral guide, and you'd be right. But that's not what you said, and that's not how they'll take it.

frrp, I just can't resist a set-up like that:

"Isn't 'Creation Science for Dummies' redundant?"

Yuk, yuk.

/It's funny 'cause I mean it!
//Aren't you glad I just went ahead and got it out of the way?
///Why yes, I am staying up all night working on a paper again. I do that a lot lately. Sigh.

hm... that panel consisted to reject a scientific grant consisted of english lit, sociology, history, human science and economics... not the most scientificly strict groups of departments... but most likely open and "liberal" to various interpretations... oh its just those silly scientists again... intelligent design is in a book somewhere guess we should give it credit...

jeanette

While I personally believe God uses evolution as a tool to better species, I can't agree with your condemnation. Denying medical treatment to people with different beliefs than your own is scary stuff, and totally discriminatory.

thespindrifter: He believed in YHWH. He lived in the 20th Century as a prominent scientist, and believed in God. I don't know that he was a creationist, but I'm pretty damn sure most of the evolutionists don't.

Would you consider the former chair of the Georgetown Department of Theology to be an atheist? Or the Pope? Or the Anglican church?

And the compromisers who claim to believe in both might as well give up and stop pretending to believe in a God who cares about them, because if the Genesis account isn't believable, none of the Bible is believable, and they are waisting their time.

So if the Genesis account is allegorically true (that is, a parable meant to illustrate and teach important moral truths) that's not good enough? If, say, there was no literal Good Samaritan who helped a literal injured man, does that dilute the moral of the story? Is it worthless if it wasn't factually true? Can a metaphor or parable teach us something even if it didn't happen?

Here's a question, you get to play God here. Your goal is to educate humans on moral truth. Do you:
1. Try to teach them literal truth which they won't be able to come close to comprehending for thousands of years. You're trying to teach Bronze Age nomads chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, astronomy, quantum physics, etc. just to get them up to speed so they can maybe understand a little of it.
2. Teach them a parable which, although not literally true, is metaphorically true, easily understood, and illustrative of several key moral lessons. Give them the intelligence and the logic needed so that they can ultimately discover the literal truth as well as the metaphorical truth.

God either gave us his undiluted words and preserved them, or He is not God.

I'd suggest that the existence of hundreds of different translations of the New Testament alone are evidence of a lack of any proactive preservation attempt. Heck, King James added stuff because he thought it should be in there and he's the one most of the fundamentalists read.

It just gets me how many ID/creationist supporters seem to think that evolution is some kind of conspiracy.. or fortress that must be taken down to save their godless country, or something.

It's like having a bunch of people standing outside a vehicle mechanics shop, protesting their usage of screwdrivers because screwdrivers disprove god.

It's just totally... inane.

My God is a mighty God, and an awesome God. His name is Fargowaxel. He rules the heavens and the earth (although not the troposphere, which is the domain of his mortal enemy Burf). He rules the animals and the plants, the stones and the air. And you; especially you.

The Gospel of Fargowaxel, revealed in the great holy book known as The Better Homes and Gardens Guide to Window-Box Herb Gardens, states that Steak is the only fit food for worshippers of Fargowaxel, and that Steak and Steak alone can provide the nutrition necessary for men of grace to live. Fargowaxel states that Steak contains more than the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin C.

The high incidence of scurvy among the faithful of Fargowaxel is NOT related to His mandated diet; it is Fargowaxel's punishment upon the weak of faith, and ALL men are weak of faith. Dieticians and chemists who claim that Steak does not contain our full dietary needs are False Men and will be cast down into the Pit of Tofu, where they will be forever unmanned by Burf's phytoestrogens.

These are my beliefs, and you must respect them. They're every bit as "right" and "valid" as the radical, Fargowaxel-hating nonsense that your "nutritionist"-fascists attempt to bring into our daily lives. Fargowaxelism is just as valid a theory of nutrition as the FDA's "food pyramid," and it's no coincidence that a pyramid is also the symbol of the Illuminati! There is a movement in America to attack the faithful of Fargowaxel!

/Okay, if you don't get the idea by now, you never will. I'm done.

The problem in trying to construct any proof of the theory of evolution is disregarding the mutations that occur intermittently which don't create an advantage for the organism and so, don't enhance its survival.

Anyone purturbed by the thought-controlly aspects of this whole thing? "Unless you activly support the reigning orthodoxy, we will cut off your funding."

Noble Savage: The problem in trying to construct any proof of the theory of evolution is disregarding the mutations that occur intermittently which don't create an advantage for the organism and so, don't enhance its survival.

Wait, what?

I totally didn't follow what you were trying to say there.

First off, the vast majority of mutations not only don't enhance an organism, they're actually detrimental; most mutations are essentially glitches in a vast, complex code and are more likely to screw something up than not. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare. The difference is that beneficial mutations tend to stick around, since the individuals that have them pass them on better.

Imagine you were writing a novel and every once in a while you made a typo; more often than not, it would just result in a misspelled word or bad sentence, but every once in a long, long while, it might actually improve what you were writing by changing one word into a similar but better one. You'd correct the bad ones - i.e., they'd die - but you'd be likely to leave the good ones alone. That, in a nutshell, is natural selection.

Perhaps you are subscribing the the "directed evolution" fallacy; let me straighten that out for you. Evolution is not directed. Mutations are not sought out; they are accidents. They do not occur for a purpose. They do not occur regularly. They are nothing but random variation.

So: why would innocuous mutations have any relevance to evolution whatsoever? What you said is analogous to saying that gambling would be a perfectly reasonable thing if only you could account for the times now and again when you didn't win.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you said was even a proper sentence.

/Seriously, people, stop trying to talk about evolutionary biology when you don't even know what the words you're using mean.
//Go do your homework!
///There will be a quiz!

Also, I asked all you people to stop using the phrase "theory of evolution" more than once already. Evolution is a demonstrable phenomenon, not a theory; the "theories" in question are the various mechanisms proposed to explain evolution, such as natural selection. "Theory of evolution" is a creationist catchphrase.

Holy poop, looking back over this thread...

I apparently have way too much time on my hands.

/Only I don't, actually, 'cause I was up all night working. :(

Noble Savage: The problem in trying to construct any proof of the theory of evolution is disregarding the mutations that occur intermittently which don't create an advantage for the organism and so, don't enhance its survival.

Why?

whatshisname, how did you manage to sum up my entire essay up there in just one short syllable?

Quit that! You're making me look like a windbag!

So, just an interesting side note (and illustration for those of you who were Arkansas bashing last week), the guy who wrote the article featured last week about problems teaching evolution in Arkansas works with the guy whom this article is about. So, see? It's not just Arkansas where this is happening - it's happening in enlightened Canada as well.

Montreal has the world's best strippers.

/Why the fark are we talking about jeebus?

2006-04-06 11:33:23 PM codenazi

I've been trying to explain to people how the memetic realm is just like other biology (viruses in particular) for some time.

You should read Howard Bloom's "Lucifer Principal". It's a very interesting book that deals exacttly with what you're looking for. In fact, there's a lot of folks on Fark who would do well to sit down and read it.

FloydA: Fortunately, like a horse and a donkey, the hybrid offspring is infertile.

Mostly.

/fertile mules do exist. They're just very rare.

How's it going, BEVETS? I'm confused by this international standard time stamp. I can't tell if it's April, June, or July. It's warm where I'm at. I don't know about you, but I used to be able to think much more clearly, but then I discovered fark. And I foolishly tried to understand the logic of the evolutionists posting to fark. Doctor says I'd be better if I'd never done that.

I'll drop you an email today or tomorrow. Do you remember my name? It'll be in the subject line. Time for my nap.

thespindrifter: I respect my athiest friends more than the idiots who won't get off the fence.

Atheism is fundamentalism - unshakeable faith in an unprovable concept.

I'll stay on that fence - more open minds, far fewer lunatics there.

Frrrp

frrrp: Atheism is fundamentalism - unshakeable faith in an unprovable concept.

You know, I really think the hardline monotheists are the only people who actually believe that. My personal beliefs are not unshakeable, unprovable or "faith," but they certainly don't include any gods.

It's a popular TROLL, though, isn't it?

I mean, I guess the term is relative; I do know plenty of atheist idiots who insist religiously that there can be no gods. But I think for the most part, atheists are just ordinary, reasonable folks (those two terms are not synonymous, nor do they coincide as often as you'd think) who don't want religion in their lives. For me, it's pretty much entirely about evidence; I will not believe such a load of hooey when it's completely unsupported. The most reasonable, logical explanations of cosmology don't involve divinity.

What I'm getting at is that (GASP!) it's possible to believe something without being dogmatic about it. Yeah, I believe there is no supernatural; but for one, the term "supernatural" is pretty danged loose, and for another, if evidence to the contrary were to come along, I'd be totally open to reinterpreting.

(Of course, if there were evidence, it wouldn't really be "supernatural" any more, would it?)

I usually just claim to be agnostic, myself, because it's easier than arguing with nitwits who insist that by saying "atheist" I'm lumping myself into a faith.

/Yeah, I'm still here. You can't get rid of me that easily.

^See what I mean?^

Albert Speer, while the things you say are... well, probably true, you are still not going to make any friends by advocating what amounts to genocide. :( Don't make me Godwin you.

Cheeseburger, no, actually I don't. If you're implying that ol' Albert there is a toe-the-line Atheist Commie Conspirator, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. I would go so far as to say that while many angry 14-year-old boys call themselves atheists, the majority of atheists are not angry 14-year-old boys who talk out their arses.

Or, if you're talking about me, then perhaps you would like to consider something Abraham Lincoln once said:
"My good countrymen, I believe that STFU NOOB!"

/LOL, pwned!
//Not really.
///Actually, worst rebuttal ever. If it were a real rebuttal, at any rate.
////STFU, NOOB!

shadesofblack: It's a popular TROLL, though, isn't it? (re: Atheism is fundamentalism)

No, no troll. Atheism is an absolute position. There is no God, no discussion will be listened to. Its pure black and white, no middle ground.

I'm smart enough to realise I don't know everything, and am prepared to listen to anything. Fundamentalists, be they theist or atheist, are not.

Frrrp

frrrp: Atheism is an absolute position. There is no God, no discussion will be listened to. Its pure black and white, no middle ground.

Man, did you even read the rest of my post? Or did you just pick out the first sentence to which you could reply, "Nuh-uh, 'cause you're a stupid-head!"?

I provided you with a material example to the contrary -- me! For the love of fark, if I haven't been "entertaining discussion" here for the last quite-a-lot-of-hours, then what would you call it?

/"No, you're wrong, it's the way I said, just 'cause" is not a valid argument
//Neither is saying the same thing you just said, only louder and in stronger terms

shadesofblack: Oh,dear! Looks like I've been Dawkins'd!

Cheeseburger:

Man, you better believe it. You got Dawkins'd like nobody's business!

Mostly Richard Dawkins just tells people they're wrong, and probably not very smart. He's generally correct, but, you know.

/The greatest thing about making up new, nonsensical verb and adverb forms is the completely arbitrary conditions for satisfying them.

In fact, come to think of it, I would go so far as to define "to Dawkins" as:
1. v. to argue or rebut authoritatively and correctly, but in such a way as leave no one convinced and everyone angry.

I no longer say that I am an atheist, that doesn't mean I am not. I am a believer in the god of the ALL. God of hard vaccum, god of love, of worms and dirt and genocide.

There seems something essentially permutating rather than directing to a specific configuration. If there is a God, we know him best by his creation. It seems to me that his perfect knowledge is not so different from perfect ignorance.

Who are the fools who expect pitiful ape-men to distinguish between the handiwork and hand of the divine?

shadesofblack: Mostly Richard Dawkins tells outright lies(that all mammals have vestigial traces of gills as embryos, that cloning stem-cells is morally the same as culturing HeLa cells), fills his books with fluff, and insults those who don't accept the Shhit Happens Theory of Everything.

Man, Synaesthesia is so freaking high right now. Dude, it's like... whoa. Man, he just had this crazy idea, but, like, listen... no, seriously, it totally all makes sense now.

Dude... do you have any Funyuns? Synaesthesia could really go for some Funyuns right now...

Cheeseburger, thank you for so aptly demonstrating the veracity of my definition.

I would hazard a guess that you have not read these books that you claim are filled with fluff, nor ever done any independent research to discredit these "outright lies." But, you know, that's just a guess. And being that this is the internet, it will naturally be wrong, and you will unequivocally be an authority on the matter at hand. Because, you know, no one on the internet is ever ignorant, just differently right.

/I like how you lumped the "moral equivalence" example under "outright lies," as if there were any objective truth to lie about when judging morality.
//With that, I'm going to go take a nap, 'cause I stayed up all night arguing about this nonsense while a wrote a paper, and now I'm done, and exhausted.
///Ciao.

shadesofblack: You got me, you clever animal, you! This NOOB has been Dawkins'd again. Sleep well.