Cleaning the Stalls V: Evolution

Comment threads from front page posts.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

From here.

WOW this is a long post. But I think it's a damned good'un. Everything you ever wanted to know about the Theory of Evolution, and more.




Edited By GORDON on 1126633884
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Mommy Dearest
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 12:59 pm

Post by Mommy Dearest »

What would Jesus say?
Jesus of Nazareth
Site Admin
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:08 pm
Location: Jesusland.
Contact:

Post by Jesus of Nazareth »

What would Jesus say?
It's good stuff.

Image
"Jesusland..." I like the sound of that.
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

Was that just a science lesson, or was there a point? :-)
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Was that just a science lesson, or was there a point? :-)

It was a "Cleaning the Stalls" installment. It gets a permanent spot in the right column that I can link to when someone is vocally misunderstanding what Evolution is. Keeps me from having to explain it over and over.

Basically just a science lesson.




Edited By GORDON on 1123896760
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

Here's an interesting editorial.

This part in particular reminded me of your tirade:
The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

It may or may not be, but surely the matter can be debated on scientific grounds, responded to with argument instead of invective and stigma. Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

Since the debate started in the “It’s about time” thread I have been doing quite a bit of research into the theory of Intelligent Design. The more I read, the more I feel that it is important to the scientific community for both groups to be heard.

I understand the objections raised by scientists (and Gordo). This line of thought threatens the paradigm of existing science concerning the origins of life.

What I see here reminds me of what happened when the Catholic Church controlled the avenues of existing “science” hundreds of years ago. I forget the names, but remember the story, so please be patient.

There was a monk that was trained in astronomy (by The Church) who was commissioned to prove that all the heavenly bodies traveled across the skies in perfect circles. The paradigm of the time was that God created everything and God is perfect; ergo, all orbits of heavenly bodies must be perfect (meaning circles). Looking at heavenly bodies at the time showed that they were all perfect orbs. The earth was littered with all these ugly mountains and canyons because it had become impure due to our being here. The moon had pox marks because our impurities went up to it because of how close we are to it (keep in mind they didn’t have the telescopes we have today showing how jagged the surface of the moon is in actuality).

So this monk went about tracking the heavenly bodies and started plotting orbits within orbits (within orbits within orbits) to explain why these bodies appeared to travel in less than perfect circles. In doing so, he made the remarkable discovery that Earth was not the center of the Universe. He rushed to the Vatican to share his newfound wisdom with them, and they rewarded him by burning him at the stake.

Later another scientist discovered the same thing, but was wise enough to wait until he was on his deathbed before having his findings released.

I see much of the same attitude in Darwinists today that existed in the Church hundreds of years ago. The only difference is that they kill them in reputation today rather than in body. A group of scientists have gradually come to question whether of not Darwinism explains everything, and they find that in some areas it’s coming up lacking.

In a complex system such as the planet Earth and the life that’s on it, many areas of science come into play, not only biology, but astronomy, chemistry, geology, geochemistry, and I’m sure many others. I believe the idea of Intelligent Design encompasses many, many fields. I also feel this plays a part in some of the narrow thinking among Darwinists. They become too insulated in their respective fields.

Now looking at the theories in Intelligent Design, I wouldn’t want that theory to become the paradigm either. The idea of “God made it that way” isn’t much of an incentive to delve deeper and discover an answer.

All that being said, I like the idea of Intelligent Design being presented as a competing theory to Natural Selection in school. First, it helps lessen the hold that strict Darwinism has over future scientists. Second, when an area of science has holes in their theories it is proper for them to be challenged by other scientists. Make no mistake; there are many scientists that believe in the notion of Intelligent Design, though they don’t identify themselves as “Intelligent Design Scientists”, but rather biologists, biochemists, etc.

In most areas of science, a scientist would welcome legitimate challenges to theories. It gives them the opportunity to strengthen it, or if needed adjust it. So I have to wonder of what Darwinists are so afraid? I find no small amount of irony in the notion that they are now subject to the same sort of challenge to their belief system that the Creationists were faced with when Darwin’s theory started to gain acceptance.

And they are acting out in exactly the same way as those poor, stupid, Bible thumpers.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
DoctorChaos
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm

Post by DoctorChaos »

I don't know much other than what's been posted about Intelligent Design, however at first glance it looks a whole lot like Creationism repackaged. With that said...

When theory of evolution is taught in the class room it is taught as a theory. The potential problem of ID is when the question 'Who is the designer?' comes up it could lead to a very disturbing discussion in class. Can you imagine a teacher responding with 'Well, it's God, Allah, Yawah(sp?), Jehovah, Gaia, whatever you want to call it.'
Someone is going to get their panties in a wad because their deity wasn't mentioned. The athiest are going to get bent because it was mentioned at all.

With evolution one can point to this. This lends credence to the theory. It doesn't explain how we came to be but rather one of the mechanism that led to it.

I have yet to see a species spontaneously appear, or heard how it might happen. So my theory is species cannot spontaneously appear. I invite anyone and everyone to prove me wrong. :)
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

I don't know much other than what's been posted about Intelligent Design, however at first glance it looks a whole lot like Creationism repackaged. With that said...


Then please do some research into the matter. Intelligent Design walks hand in hand of at least 90% of the theory of evolution.

About all they have in common (Creationism and Intelligent Design) is the idea that there is a Higher Power and that this Higher Power has had a hand in the development of life. This has been the most prejudicial claim that I keep seeing over and over as a method of dismissing them. It's akin to saying that members of the KKK are white, therefor if you're white you hate black people.

When theory of evolution is taught in the class room it is taught as a theory.
I am so glad you brought this up. I agree with your statement for as far as you take it. The problem arises when Natural Selection (because evolution is part of Intelligent design) is the only theory taught in schools. That amounts to state endorsment of the theory. Kind of like when people call themselves "pro-choice", but the only choice they find acceptable is abortion. They can teach it as theory, but without any opposing theory it's paramount to being taught as fact. This was why I asked Gordo what other theories he would accept being taught other than Darwinism.
The potential problem of ID is when the question 'Who is the designer?' comes up it could lead to a very disturbing discussion in class. Can you imagine a teacher responding with 'Well, it's God, Allah, Yawah(sp?), Jehovah, Gaia, whatever you want to call it.'
Someone is going to get their panties in a wad because their deity wasn't mentioned. The athiest are going to get bent because it was mentioned at all.
What's wrong with "we don't know"? There are any number of things taught in class rooms to which we don't have the answers. "Who was Jack The Ripper?", "Why are there those big heads on Easter Island?", "How did they make the pyrimids?", "What was that brown stuff in the cafeteria at lunch?"

The best answer to that is, "That's a question best left to a philosophy class". Which is the correct answer.

I have yet to see a species spontaneously appear, or heard how it might happen. So my theory is species cannot spontaneously appear. I invite anyone and everyone to prove me wrong. :)
And Intelligent Design never states that species spontaeously appear. Like I said, do some research on it.

But to answer you challenge, I will prove you wrong. I happened at least once or life wouldn't be here :D
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

I am going to take a couple of days off of this subject to recharge my batteries.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

I am going to take a couple of days off of this subject to recharge my batteries.
Heh... I know what you mean. My head's starting to hurt.

I had a random thought while in the shower, though. Just a "what if" for you to ponder while we recharge...

What if... at some point in the future after we learn more about the mappings of DNA and what it all means we encounter this scenario:

In mapping the DNA of a lesser species (or "parent" species) we find genetic markers for characteristics that their evolved decendents have, but they don't?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
DoctorChaos
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm

Post by DoctorChaos »

The potential problem of ID is when the question 'Who is the designer?' comes up it could lead to a very disturbing discussion in class. Can you imagine a teacher responding with 'Well, it's God, Allah, Yawah(sp?), Jehovah, Gaia, whatever you want to call it.'
Someone is going to get their panties in a wad because their deity wasn't mentioned. The athiest are going to get bent because it was mentioned at all.
What's wrong with "we don't know"? There are any number of things taught in class rooms to which we don't have the answers. "Who was Jack The Ripper?", "Why are there those big heads on Easter Island?", "How did they make the pyrimids?", "What was that brown stuff in the cafeteria at lunch?"

I agree that we don't have to answer all the questions in school. Lord knows most of the teachers can't, but that's another post.

However, there haven't been any wars fought over who Jack the Ripper was.

Perhaps ID needs to be presented in the schools. What's up for debate is how it's presented. This discussion is a perfect example of how interpretation of ID can vary greatly. I shot off my mouth not knowing what ID really is. Multiply that by some number and we're looking at a group of people thinking they have a free pass for teaching creationism. Now we have a big problem.

I'm not sure how this is going to help other than throw fuel on the fire. (I LOVE FIRE!) Natural Selection is just a species fitting into an environment the best way it can. This doesn't always make it most advanced or perfectly suited to its environment. Example, Neanderthals were pefectly suited for the climate of Ice Age Europe. What killed them was their inability to adapt fast enough to combat the new hominid (Cro-Magnon). Neaderthals were stronger and better suited but the Cro-Magnon could reproduce faster and could adapt their local surrondings to suit themselves. In this fight it was survival of the fastest fucking.

Another example in human history. Human kind nearly died out. As a result, a huge portion of the gene pool vanished. Limiting our variety within our genome. Only those who could adapt to the palague survived. Random environmental conditions causing change. Or prehaps its a mechanism of intelligent design?
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
DoctorChaos
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm

Post by DoctorChaos »

Opps, I was confusing articles. It wasn't a plague rather, they suggest, a water shortage. Again it comes down to random environmental changes.
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

Perhaps ID needs to be presented in the schools. What's up for debate is how it's presented. This discussion is a perfect example of how interpretation of ID can vary greatly. I shot off my mouth not knowing what ID really is. Multiply that by some number and we're looking at a group of people thinking they have a free pass for teaching creationism. Now we have a big problem.
You know, I actually agree with that. More so, the more I examine ID I realize that in many ways that Gordo is right in that it can't be held to the same standards as other areas of science. It needs to be noted that Karl Popper, the father of the idea of "Falsification" used by scientists today didn't think Darwinism should be considered a science for the same reasons Darwinists are saying that ID shouldn't.

ID seems to be more of an area of question than answers. Which is fine, in that all science starts with questions arrived at from observation.

I would like to see certain aspects of ID taught (or mentioned) along with the study of evolution. Teach elovution as a theory, however point out the holes that haven't been filled in yet.

Teach about the idea of "primordial soup", but point out that no one has been able duplicate this "soup" in any type of environment that geologists actually think might have existed on the newly cooled earth.

Speak of Darwin's Theory, but point out that the fossil record really doesn't much support a gradual change over time, but appears to be spurts of changes producing new species in which they remain largely unchanged for the duration of their existance. Point out that the first bat appeard roughly 50-60 million years ago and the earliest record of it indicates it already seemed to have a devolped echochamber. There has been no precurser to the modern bat ever found in the fossil record. Point out that given what we can discern from the rate of change in the gnome of biology, some scientists are having trouble with the statistical probability of life as advanced and diverse as this planet has seen being likely in a strictly random system.

I guess it just needs to be said that currently Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is our only working theory currently. It's pretty piss poor and the more we learn the more scientists don't believe it holds all the answers as it stands, but it answers the questions better than anything else we're able to test to date.

Just raise the questions and expose the problems with Darwinism. You don't have to even enter ID into the class as a science (and at least at this point I probably wouldn't). Just point out when "there's a question as to how this could appear randomly".
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

Opps, I was confusing articles. It wasn't a plague rather, they suggest, a water shortage. Again it comes down to random environmental changes.
Heheh... may have been a flood :;):
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
DoctorChaos
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm

Post by DoctorChaos »

Opps, I was confusing articles. It wasn't a plague rather, they suggest, a water shortage. Again it comes down to random environmental changes.

Heheh... may have been a flood :;):
At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people.


Damn, that was a big boat. :laugh:
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

The first cruise line.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

I think that Copernicus was the first one to discover that a geocentric universe wasn't the case.

As for the second one, it could've been Johannes Kepler or Tycho Brahe.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Started another bio class today. Not the one designed to give the hippy tree-huggers a science credit (environmental and ecological biology [and this one filled up fast as hell]), but the one designed for the science majors (which didn't fill up at all).

One of the first things the PhD prof said was, "Who here believes in evolution?" The usage of the word "believes" instantly raised a red flag with me, but I didn't know where he was going with it so I did a 'yeah, sure.'

He says, "Well stop, because evolution isn't a belief system. It's a scientific theory that happens to be supported by a mountain of evidence, observations, and statistics. There are other systems out there, but they just don't have the evidence to support them, yet." Not making that up.

And on his desk I saw he had a diagram of the structure of a flagellum. Uh oh.




Edited By GORDON on 1124123992
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
DoctorChaos
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm

Post by DoctorChaos »

Sifu Gordon of EvolutionFu!
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
Post Reply