If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   At 200, Darwin evolves beyond evolution: Coverage you may have missed, may want to revisit   (wired.com) divider line 127
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

2507 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Feb 2009 at 7:21 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-12 03:39:02 AM
I expect this thread to be full enlightened conversation where those knowledgeable about these topics kindly and gently educate those who may be less acquainted with the material, who, I assume, will ask thoughtful, reasonable questions.

Right?

right?
 
2009-02-12 03:54:04 AM
www.insidesocal.com
 
2009-02-12 05:37:50 AM
mamoru: I expect this thread to be full enlightened conversation where those knowledgeable about these topics kindly and gently educate those who may be less acquainted with the material, who, I assume, will ask thoughtful, reasonable questions.

Right?

right?


on fark??? About Evolution? RRrriiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht!
 
2009-02-12 07:05:24 AM
SouthernManDunWrong: mamoru: I expect this thread to be full enlightened conversation where those knowledgeable about these topics kindly and gently educate those who may be less acquainted with the material, who, I assume, will ask thoughtful, reasonable questions.

Right?

right?

on fark??? About Evolution? RRrriiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht!


These threads are rarely intelligently designed, and seem to be evolutionary dead-ends where one environmental irritant emerges early in development and is focused upon by the hive organism to the exclusion of all else. This biological error causes the thread to suffer deprivation of its intellectual capacity, which leads to retardation, dysfunction, and death without ever being a meaningful evolutionary adaptation.
 
2009-02-12 07:08:07 AM
Only four in ten believe in evolution? (new window) Ok, it's 2009 people.

I guess that the encouraging part is that the younger folks seem to to gravitate towards the science-based explanation of things.
 
2009-02-12 07:13:26 AM
It also happens to be Lincoln's 200th birthday.
 
2009-02-12 07:34:40 AM
Happy Darwin Day, everyone!
 
2009-02-12 07:34:49 AM
notmtwain: It also happens to be Lincoln's 200th birthday.

He just freed the slaves. Darwin freed our MINDS, man!
 
2009-02-12 07:37:24 AM
dahmers love zombie: SouthernManDunWrong: mamoru: I expect this thread to be full enlightened conversation where those knowledgeable about these topics kindly and gently educate those who may be less acquainted with the material, who, I assume, will ask thoughtful, reasonable questions.

Right?

right?

on fark??? About Evolution? RRrriiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht!

These threads are rarely intelligently designed, and seem to be evolutionary dead-ends where one environmental irritant emerges early in development and is focused upon by the hive organism to the exclusion of all else. This biological error causes the thread to suffer deprivation of its intellectual capacity, which leads to retardation, dysfunction, and death without ever being a meaningful evolutionary adaptation.


I think the problem is that trolls are better adapted to thrive in Internet arguments. Smart people are left with only the academic niche.
 
2009-02-12 07:45:15 AM
Who?
 
2009-02-12 07:46:45 AM
TheYeti: Only four in ten believe in evolution?

I doubt that many people understand evolution in even the most elementary way. That's the problem - even proponents of science often hold on to ideas that sound like intelligent design or the myth of progress. People seem to have a natural need to find order and meaning in things. That's why good science education is so important: because our knowledge has evolved beyond our intuition.
 
2009-02-12 07:54:18 AM
If the design is intelligent, why are there Creationists?
 
2009-02-12 07:56:06 AM
There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthday-if that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day" (see www.AcademicFreedomDay.com).

To be sure, Darwin supported academic freedom. In On the Origin of Species, he openly discussed weaknesses in his arguments and declared that "a fair result can only be obtained by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

One would think that Darwin's latter-day defenders would follow his approach and allow debate over evolution in the classroom. But a lot has changed in the past 150 years.

Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress. ~ Casey Luskin
 
2009-02-12 08:01:40 AM
Bevets is still a moron, I see. Unfortunately for him I think that counts as proof against both evolutionism *and* intelligent design.

Let me make this simple, pea brain:

CLASSROOMS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DEBATE TEAM, ARE NOT FOR DEBATE. THEY TEACH THINGS TO THE BEST OF CURRENT UNDERSTANDING. I WONT EVEN BOTHER WITH THE FACT THAT THE 'DEBATE'AGAINST EVOLUTION IS QUAKERY AT BEST. GO BE STUPID SOMEWHERE ELSE. PREFERABLY TAKE ALL OF THE ASTROLOGERS AND OTHER RELATED NUTBALLS WITH YOU.
 
2009-02-12 08:03:19 AM
mamoru: I expect this thread to be full enlightened conversation where those knowledgeable about these topics kindly and gently educate those who may be less acquainted with the material, who, I assume, will ask thoughtful, reasonable questions.

I expect you will pass the bong shortly.
 
2009-02-12 08:12:52 AM
Bevets: Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress. ~ Casey Luskin

Science refers to the process of gathering evidence, forming conjectures about the evidence, developing a formal hypothesis which indicates how the current evidence may be described under the conjecture, competitive testing of all candidate hypotheses under a formal criterion for probable correctness, plus the body of hypotheses testing best thereby and which thereafter are referred to as "Theories".

In the most formal sense, the criterion used for this is a more exacting expression of Occam's Razor, which has been proven in the absolute mathematical sense in the paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity", by Paul M. B. Vitanyi and Ming Li (doi:10.1109/18.825807, free PostScript copy here). This shows that the most "concise" hypothesis (a function of both the bit size of the conjecture of how the data should be described, and how many bits are needed to convey all properties of the data thereby) is the one most likely to correctly describe the character of future data. Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory (which serve as the modern foundation for all mathematics) are self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.

Note that the root of the word "prove" is from the Latin probare, "to test". Thus, hypotheses that become theories may be said to have been "proven" in the sense that Science uses the word. This is distinct from the mathematical sense, in that the usual use of "proof" in mathematics indicates a rigorous derivation from axioms; however, the sense that science uses is similar to the sense that a person might seek to "prove" that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.

It follows, therefore, that "strengths and weaknesses" or reference to particular arguments being strong and weak can only be made in terms of how one hypothesis compares relative to another. The default reference comparison is the "absolute null" hypothesis, which mathematically corresponds to simply noting there are data, and making no attempt to relate them. In the case of evolutionary biology, there are a number of competing variations which have evolved from Darwin's original concept. However, neither "creationism" nor "intelligent design" provide more than marginal improvement over the null, and are no-where near the conciseness of the Modern Evolutionary Genetic Synthesis. Similarly, discussion of "holes" and "missing transitional forms" are also misleading, since science is inherently a process for making inference from a bounded set of data to the characteristics of data we yet lack. Determining what is most probably in a hole in Evidence is fundamentally what Science is for.

Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates are thus, at best, supporters of a conjecture with roots established in religion, who do not test under the Minimum Description Length Induction criterion, and who do not gather evidence directly from reality. As such, whatever it may be that they are doing, it is not science, and does not belong in high school Science classrooms.

However, perhaps I am mistaken in my impression. Would you care to give an example of a scientific weakness, Bevets?

img165.imageshack.us
 
2009-02-12 08:13:28 AM
Bevets: But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom.

Should medical schools have the freedom to teach Witch Doctorism to America's future doctors? Shouldn't the doctors decide which is the better course of treatment after being supplied with both sides? Why or why not? Discuss.
 
2009-02-12 08:20:21 AM
PC LOAD LETTER: Should medical schools have the freedom to teach Witch Doctorism to America's future doctors? Shouldn't the doctors decide which is the better course of treatment after being supplied with both sides? Why or why not? Discuss.

Unfortunately, some of them already are. (^)..
 
2009-02-12 08:31:05 AM
In an attempt to actually discuss something from the article, as well as nip Mr GED-in-Law's inevitable post on Junk DNA, I want to rail against the science writers at WIRED for yet AGAIN showing that they love to use the term incorrectly. Micro-RNAs (miRNA) are NOT coded for in Junk DNA. In fact, they are generally coded for by known genes.

miRNA was first discovered in 1993 (although the term miRNA was not coined until 2001) by Lee, Feinbaum, and Ambrose in this paper. Specifically they discovered short RNA transcripts being produced from the lin-4 gene. This gene did not appear to code for a protein based on mutagenesis studies of potential open reading frames, but open reading frames where there. Non-coding does NOT mean Junk, the two are not synonomous and were never meant to be. Unfortunately some people did later start using the term Junk interchangeably with Non-coding, which was a mistake. The term Junk DNA was termed to specifically describe things like Pseudogenes, ERVs, retrotransposons, etc. Even today, when there is a stretch of DNA of unknown function, especially if there is an open reading frame in it, we don't term it Junk, Junk status actually sort of needs to eb proved. Otherwise, if there is an open reading frame but no known protein or homology to other genes we call it an ORFan. We may call stretches of DNA with no open reading frames Non-coding, knowing full well that it may contain regulatory elements, binding sites, etc. It isn't Junk.

Wired got it wrong again (they've demonstrated before they don't know or care about the difference). miRNAs where not discovered in Junk DNA, they were discovered in either Non-coding DNA or DNA with Open Reading Frames of unknown function.

Big Difference.
 
2009-02-12 08:41:50 AM
notmtwain: It also happens to be Lincoln's 200th birthday.

FACT: Lincoln and Darwin share a birthday
FACT: Lincoln and Darwin both had kick ass beards
FACT: Lincoln and Darwin have never been photographed in the same room, nor were they ever seen together.
FACT: In 1865 Darwin repeatedly complained of a headache so bad that it "Felt as if I've been shot while watching a play"

We're through the looking glass people.
 
2009-02-12 08:45:02 AM
notmtwain: It also happens to be Lincoln's 200th birthday.

Lincoln: "I need another birthday celebration like I need a hole in the head."
 
2009-02-12 08:48:44 AM
abb3w:

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth.

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald
 
2009-02-12 08:50:28 AM
Bevets: academic freedomGHARBL

Bevets is right. Too long has the academic institution been confined by the aristocracy of facts, evidence, argument and reason. This hegemony of injustice must end!

We foist things like the germ theory of disease on our medical students, without once teaching the controversy: that sickness is caused my malevolent spirits that coil around your kundalini chakra and can only be cured by copious anal sex.
 
2009-02-12 08:51:47 AM
Bevets: There is no third position.

Yes, there is. Incremental evolution from simple molecules to complex molecules to networks of molecules that eventually behaved as organisms.

No one believes spontaneous generation. GODDAMMIT, why am I arguing with a bot?
 
2009-02-12 08:57:02 AM
t3knomanser: Bevets:

No one believes spontaneous generation. GODDAMMIT, why am I arguing with a bot?


I sometimes ask myself why I talk to my car when it won't start.
 
2009-02-12 09:05:09 AM
"This won't make me go schizo, will it?"

/Surely not too obscure...
//I know, I know - don't call you Shirley...
 
2009-02-12 09:12:04 AM
onyxia: dahmers love zombie: SouthernManDunWrong: mamoru: I expect this thread to be full enlightened conversation where those knowledgeable about these topics kindly and gently educate those who may be less acquainted with the material, who, I assume, will ask thoughtful, reasonable questions.

Right?

right?

on fark??? About Evolution? RRrriiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht!

These threads are rarely intelligently designed, and seem to be evolutionary dead-ends where one environmental irritant emerges early in development and is focused upon by the hive organism to the exclusion of all else. This biological error causes the thread to suffer deprivation of its intellectual capacity, which leads to retardation, dysfunction, and death without ever being a meaningful evolutionary adaptation.

I think the problem is that trolls are better adapted to thrive in Internet arguments. Smart people are left with only the academic niche.


Kind of like crabgrass, or cockroaches.
 
2009-02-12 09:13:24 AM
maddogdelta: PC LOAD LETTER: Should medical schools have the freedom to teach Witch Doctorism to America's future doctors? Shouldn't the doctors decide which is the better course of treatment after being supplied with both sides? Why or why not? Discuss.

Unfortunately, some of them already are. (^)..


I'll be more concerned when they get an MD from this.
 
2009-02-12 09:15:10 AM
Bevets: [...]~ George Wald

1) This is an objection to the theory of the biogenic transition and prevolutionary dynamics thereof, not to the validity of Evolution thereafter.
2) The biogenic transition is itself well-supported. See (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178), (doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105), (doi:10.1126/science.1161527) and (doi:10.1126/science.1167856); feel free to raise related issues.
3) The rate-of-reaction for the formation is approximately eight to twelve orders of magnitude slower than the form of biogenesis Pasteur addressed and discredited experimentally. Such a difference in rate-of-reaction is in part why the typical crowbar does not explode in a fireball, but rather is prone to rust. Whether this should be considered sufficient quantitative difference as to be effectively qualitative is debatable.
4) This is also (not-so-coincidentally) the rough difference in the rate-of-reaction for conversion of available resources to living forms between where life is already present and where life is not already present, explaining in part why such ex nihilo transition is not likely in the present environment.

In short: your quote does not present a scientific weakness, due to a failure to provide an alternative hypothesis with shorter MDLI than the present theory.

t3knomanser: Too long has the academic institution been confined by the aristocracy of facts, evidence, argument and reason.

Yes, yes... Academic Freedom is constrained by Professional Responsibility.
 
2009-02-12 09:19:46 AM
Bevets: The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.

You quote mined someone again. So what.

What does somebody's opinion have to do with reality? Most people here say that "Bevets is a bot" Has this turned you into a bot?

There is a third option. It's called a chemical reaction. Which means either George Wald was quote mined, or he was allowing his own personal opinions to blind himself to obvious alternatives.

Speaking of quote mining, I found this interesting quote. Maybe you are familiar with it.

Whatever your opinion of Him, it should be acknowledged that Jesus has had a more significant impact on history than any other person. Many people would agree that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but Jesus claimed to be God. If this claim (that He died for) is incorrect, He must have been either profoundly deluded or dishonest. Either of these possibilities would disqualify him as a moral leader, however He established a loyal following that has persisted for two millennia.
From Bevets.com (^)

Isn't quote mining fun? (but unlike you, I put in a link to the original, and only used strikethrough to demonstrate that I was quotemining, and that the original quote was not what I was posting. Do you see what I could have done there, dude?)
 
2009-02-12 09:22:14 AM
LowbrowDeluxe: Bevets is still a moron, I see. Unfortunately for him I think that counts as proof against both evolutionism *and* intelligent design.

Let me make this simple, pea brain:

CLASSROOMS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DEBATE TEAM, ARE NOT FOR DEBATE. THEY TEACH THINGS TO THE BEST OF CURRENT UNDERSTANDING. I WONT EVEN BOTHER WITH THE FACT THAT THE 'DEBATE'AGAINST EVOLUTION IS QUAKERY AT BEST. GO BE STUPID SOMEWHERE ELSE. PREFERABLY TAKE ALL OF THE ASTROLOGERS AND OTHER RELATED NUTBALLS WITH YOU.


images.teamsugar.com
Sees what you did there.
 
2009-02-12 09:26:25 AM
 
2009-02-12 09:32:27 AM
Is the thread where people (a person) post on the internet (created by science) from their computer (created by science) from their homes full of synthetic materials (created by science) on how science doesn't work.

This person will post endless links to try to get you to go their really, really ugly website (created by a bad html programmer). A website that is chock full of quotes intentionally taken out of context to misrepresent the original person's intent (i.e. blatant lies).

The really sad part is that, because of science (particularly evolutionary science), lifespans have been extended so much that we are going to have to listen to this stupidity for 20 or 30 extra years.

Yay science!!
 
2009-02-12 09:34:42 AM
We have come a long way in 200 years, despite the opinions of a vocal minority. Darwin was one of the truly brilliant minds of his generation (or any generation, for that matter) and I think he would be extremely proud of his legacy. We have a much better understanding of the workings of the natural world thanks to his efforts.
 
2009-02-12 09:44:32 AM
Farking Canuck: Is the thread where people (a person who didn't die in childbirth [science] or didn't die of some foul disease like smallpox, measles, polio [science]) post on the internet (created by science) from their computer (created by science) from their homes full of synthetic materials (created by science) on how science doesn't work.

Added a few items for emphasis.

But yes, you're right.

The Shoveller: Darwin was one of the truly brilliant minds of his generation (or any generation, for that matter) and I think he would be extremely proud of his legacy. We have a much better understanding of the workings of the natural world thanks to his efforts.

The more I look into what he did, the more I liken him to another profoundly brilliant scientist, Claude Shannon (^). Although some might not agree with me, both men published brilliant works, that in retrospect, any thinking person will look back on them and say "of course"! and any reputable scientist of their day would have been saying "Why didn't I think of that? It's so simple!"

Natural selection is such a brilliantly simple idea, but needed a boatload of research to postulate it, and an amazingly insightful mind to formulate it and put it into words (so let's give some credit to Wallace, who came up with the idea independently). The same goes for Shannon. Hopefully, people will hold 200th anniversary parties for Shannon.
 
2009-02-12 09:54:37 AM
Bevets: There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthday-if that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day" (see www.AcademicFreedomDay.com).

To be sure, Darwin supported academic freedom. In On the Origin of Species, he openly discussed weaknesses in his arguments and declared that "a fair result can only be obtained by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

One would think that Darwin's latter-day defenders would follow his approach and allow debate over evolution in the classroom. But a lot has changed in the past 150 years.

Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress. ~ Casey Luskin



1. there is no stifle of freedom involved with evolution, as no group has submitted an alternative, sound, and scientific alternative theory. ID is at best an unsupported hypothesis that really doesn't offer any empirical evidence other then 'magic created life'.

2. He also mentions in that quote that balancing the issues here was impossible, as the only alternative was unnatural creation, and there was no supporting evidence for that. If someone wants to give a supported, scientific alternative theory, Scientists will happy debate it with you.

3. There is plenty of debate about how evolution functions, the evidence, etc. I'm not sure what your argument is here.

4. There is no such thing as Neo-dawinism. We debate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, which is standard for any theory in science. The idea that not debating magic vs science is somehow harming the students is nonsense. That's like arguing that by not teaching alchemy we hurt students in chemistry class.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-02-12 09:57:28 AM
Bevets: abb3w:

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth.

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. ~ George Wald


Bevets: That quote is a complete fabrication Link (new window)

Psalms 101:7 ~ He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-12 09:58:52 AM
Bevets: There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthday-if that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day" (see www.AcademicFreedomDay.com).

To be sure, Darwin supported academic freedom. In On the Origin of Species, he openly discussed weaknesses in his arguments and declared that "a fair result can only be obtained by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

One would think that Darwin's latter-day defenders would follow his approach and allow debate over evolution in the classroom. But a lot has changed in the past 150 years.

Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress. ~ Casey Luskin


Lair. You and your ilk sir are dishonest lairs. Their is no debate in peer reviewed journals or scientists between creationism and evolution. You are lieing delibertly and you know it.
 
2009-02-12 09:59:51 AM
t3knomanser: Bevets: There is no third position.

Yes, there is. Incremental evolution from simple molecules to complex molecules to networks of molecules that eventually behaved as organisms.

No one believes spontaneous generation. GODDAMMIT, why am I arguing with a bot?


There, there, man. It's alright. Eventually it'll stop trotting out this crappy quote and the antiscientific canard of "no third position".
There's always at least a third position, and if you're a gene, your third positition even wobbles.
Happy Birthday, Chuckles.
 
2009-02-12 10:05:19 AM
maddogdelta:
The Shoveller: Darwin was one of the truly brilliant minds of his generation (or any generation, for that matter) and I think he would be extremely proud of his legacy. We have a much better understanding of the workings of the natural world thanks to his efforts.

The more I look into what he did, the more I liken him to another profoundly brilliant scientist, Claude Shannon (^). Although some might not agree with me, both men published brilliant works, that in retrospect, any thinking person will look back on them and say "of course"! and any reputable scientist of their day would have been saying "Why didn't I think of that? It's so simple!"

Natural selection is such a brilliantly simple idea, but needed a boatload of research to postulate it, and an amazingly insightful mind to formulate it and put it into words (so let's give some credit to Wallace, who came up with the idea independently). The same goes for Shannon. Hopefully, people will hold 200th anniversary parties for Shannon.

While I agree that Shannon had a huge impact, it remains to be seen if he will be remembered as one of the two or three greatest minds of his generation (not to minimize his contributions in any way). I also agree that Wallace is deserving of note here. Given his education, upbringing, and setbacks in his early explorations, it's almost unbelievable that he was able end up in the same intellectual spot as Darwin. However, Wallace let his mind wander in later life, and could only maintain the intellectually lofty heights of Darwin for a matter of years (perhaps only months). In some ways, it's fortunate for those of us in evolutionary fields that Wallace has been somewhat forgotten as the positions he held on a variety of subjects later in his life were none too flattering to his intellect.
 
2009-02-12 10:05:34 AM
We are already teaching our 4 year old about biology and evolution.

I'm not about to answer his questions by telling him everything was created by God in it's present form in the Garden of Eden a disputed number of years ago when I know that isn't true.

It caused me enough confusion in school to learn that much of what was in Genesis didn't jive with observed scientific evidence. There is still room for a god in there, but more and more it just seems like it would be adding unnecessary factor into it all.
 
2009-02-12 10:07:20 AM
It was pointed out in one of yesterday's or a previous day's thread about the web site Expelled Exposed (Pops). This website contains some really great material on what exactly IS the controversy. In short there is none. ID is a political movement with religious backings with no basis in science and formed on lies and stretched truths. If you are on the fence about ID, read the site, it will answer your questions in a very easy to understand language.

Also understand that this is not an assault on religion, its a block against a religious organization attempting to force their ideals into schools under the guise of freedom of expression. If they want it in schools so bad I'm sure there would be no problems with inserting a class about ID as either a club or elective course but to have it be inserted as part of a science class is cheating the students of proper facts. Teach ID for all I care, but do NOT shove it into science and pretend that its a shiny new beacon of intellectual height.
 
2009-02-12 10:08:40 AM
Expelled Exposed(new Window)

I should be fired for failing to properly form an anchor tag...
 
2009-02-12 10:08:43 AM
CDP: Bevets: That quote is a complete fabrication Link (new window)

When I quote mined Bevets before, I didn't know that his quote mine was that bad of a fabrication.

From now on, I will no longer be properly indicating that I am misquoting Bevets. I will completely take his words out of context, post them here, and then see if he gets all huffy and tries to defend himself.

(Shoe, meet other foot)

Whatever your opinion of Him, it should be acknowledged that Jesus has had a more significant impact on history than any other person. Many people would agree that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but Jesus is incorrect, He must have been either profoundly deluded or dishonest. Either of these possibilities would disqualify him as a moral leader, however He established a loyal following that has persisted for two millennia.
--Bevets
 
2009-02-12 10:10:05 AM
meat0918: We are already teaching our 4 year old about biology and evolution.

I'm not about to answer his questions by telling him everything was created by God in it's present form in the Garden of Eden a disputed number of years ago when I know that isn't true.

It caused me enough confusion in school to learn that much of what was in Genesis didn't jive with observed scientific evidence. There is still room for a god in there, but more and more it just seems like it would be adding unnecessary factor into it all.


From the earlier posted link:

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

That's actually a pretty interesting view, similar to what a Deist would say, except on a more personal scale. A Deist would say God commanded the universe to form, and thus it did, and the ability to create life was just part of the universe's design.
 
2009-02-12 10:13:24 AM
Citris: It was pointed out in one of yesterday's or a previous day's thread about the web site Expelled Exposed (Pops). This website contains some really great material on what exactly IS the controversy. In short there is none. ID is a political movement with religious backings with no basis in science and formed on lies and stretched truths. If you are on the fence about ID, read the site, it will answer your questions in a very easy to understand language.

Also understand that this is not an assault on religion, its a block against a religious organization attempting to force their ideals into schools under the guise of freedom of expression. If they want it in schools so bad I'm sure there would be no problems with inserting a class about ID as either a club or elective course but to have it be inserted as part of a science class is cheating the students of proper facts. Teach ID for all I care, but do NOT shove it into science and pretend that its a shiny new beacon of intellectual height.


That's not what they want though. They want to reshape America into what they think it should be. That is, a theocracy, based on their literal interpretation of the Bible.

First America, then the world. Because only then can their belief come true and culminate in the end of the world and the return of Jesus.
 
2009-02-12 10:19:48 AM
PC LOAD LETTER: Bevets: But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom.

Should medical schools have the freedom to teach Witch Doctorism to America's future doctors? Shouldn't the doctors decide which is the better course of treatment after being supplied with both sides? Why or why not? Discuss.


As a medical educator who is trained in comparative evolutionary biology, it is my mission to take religion out of medicine.
When students say things like "It's in God's hands" or "It is/was their time to go" I gently remind them that THEY are responsible for the health of the patient, not God.
 
2009-02-12 10:21:03 AM
meat0918:
That's not what they want though. They want to reshape America into what they think it should be. That is, a theocracy, based on their literal interpretation of the Bible.

First America, then the world. Because only then can their belief come true and culminate in the end of the world and the return of Jesus.


This is very true, however you are citing their long term goals, I was merely mentioning their short term goals. Most of the people that comprise the conservative party today are those who seek a theocratic republic, what they don't realize is that the ratio has gone beyond a level where dilution is a possibility, at this point there is enough actual intellectualism to prevent a total takeover. What worries me is when they start realizing this and have the more fringe groups who are already borderline militant, start freaking out over their lack of progress and begin taking actions. Its fairly far fetched and the probability of hostile encounters is pretty slim so I'm not worried too much. Their time has passed long ago and they will never fully realize their goals. They can have the central states.
 
2009-02-12 10:21:12 AM
notmtwain: It also happens to be Lincoln's 200th birthday.

The two men most hated in the South.
Tell me that happened by chance and that it wasn't Koresh's divine plan!
 
2009-02-12 10:31:43 AM
0Icky0: notmtwain: It also happens to be Lincoln's 200th birthday.

The two men most hated in the South.
Tell me that happened by chance and that it wasn't Koresh's divine plan!


They fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate, leads to suffering.

//Not Yoda am I, but truth he speaks yes, mmmhhmmhmmhmm
//Apologies to GilRuiz1
farm1.static.flickr.com
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report