[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 28 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

Hmmmnnn, let's see....ID, theory of evolution, high school algebra, differential equations, integral calculus.......yup, haven't used any of them lately (I suppose the diffy Q's get to me thru electronics etc. but since I throw them away when they stop working...)

Much ado about nothing and quite Shakespearian. 

Very true, in terms of how many of us (including me) live our daily lives, on a small scale.

But, in terms of our society, and how it treats people now and into the future.. how our grandchildren and their grandchildren may live, it seems to me to be very relevant.

Do we want to adulterate the quality of education our society affords children, by inculcating religious dogma as a viable and rational alternative form of science?

Do we want to subject children of non-believers, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims etc to christian dogma dressed up as science? Do we want to perpetuate a society in which calling someone an atheist is seen as an insult, as it is in many parts of the US?

Do we want to live in a theocracy akin to Iran, but with ministers rather than mullahs... of course, it is remarkably close to that already, in the US... no presidential candidate has any hope of election without explicit pandering to the closed minded bigots who run tele-evangelical networks and have become multi-millionaires by preying on the gullible.

If no one stands up to the religious zealots, they will eventually dominate the school system.. indeed, that is the explict policy of those behind ID... and the Louisana policy announcement. I'm too old to fear my country or the US becoming a true theocracy... I don't see it happening in my time, but...

If I had to make a prediction, it would be that the coming of the american theocracy will coincide with or follow upon the collapse of the american economy... maybe 30-35 years from now, when the deficits become unsustainable and the US defaults on its debt obligations. Do I think that will actually happen? Probably not, but...the US wouldn't be the first nation to fall from a dominant global position very rapidly.

[Al_U_Card]

Our society, like all those before it, is doomed. It is only a question of time and method.

Why? Because we have to include the small-minded problems with the large. People will not discern the difference because it is easier to deal with "people-size" issues than those on a grander scale.

The cathartic lurching of humanity through time is like an amoeba advancing in a swamp. Tendrils outstretched, one part "consuming" another to take its place. Intelligence is the key and acting intelligently is what is missing. Acting viscerally is in great abundance and although it's advance is certain, it is very, very inefficient.

While we wait for the amoeba to evolve (OMG it wasn't designed to be better???) we should just try to get along instead of sticking our heads somewhere they are comfortable and acting as dumb as we appear to be...

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jan 27 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

I'm not sure that I understand you.

As far as the transmittal of genetic information by viruses, that is, afaik, a well-recognized mechanism for the creation of mutations. It is only one mechanism, altho I gather that it is considered quite important. We use similar ideas, I think, in creating genetically modified plants, and lab animals.

Because I don't consider that "natural selection". That phrase, as I was taught it, was that mutants have kids and the non-mutants have kids and the fittest kids will tend to survive to have more kids.

But if there's a mutation-causing virus, which causes the same mutation in everybody in a community, where is the natural selection involved?

Let's say that we discover an island where there's lots of birds who can't fly. Natural selection would say either...

1. non-flying must have been naturally selected over flying creatures, or
2. non-flying must have evolved into flying creatures.

But this says that there's other possibilities. A mutation caused by a virus may have caused all the birds on the island to become non-flying within a couple of generations, and since it was an island, they simply didn't have much for competition. There is no winnowing involved.

Quote

None of that invalidates evolutionary theory. Simplistically put, which may be all I can do, it is my understanding that the insight first formulated by Darwin, and since refined and expanded, is that evolution requires, firstly, that the genetic structure of the lifeform in question undergo a mutation... something that happens all the time... else we would all be clones of the first homo sapiens... or still be the first lifeform that ever evolved.

Most mutations either have no appreciable impact on the viability of the next generation (perhaps more accurately..on the reproductive success thereof.. the two concepts are linked but not identical). or will have a detrimental impact. Those that reduce the organism's ability to reproduce, compared to the non-mutated variety, will tend to die out.

A few will bestow an advantage, and that mutation would tend to spread.

Darwinism is used as a superiority complex. It's a giant ego-stroking mechanism. It says that since humans evolved from apes, that we must be more fit than apes, otherwise children which showed the gene would have been unable to reproduce.

Suppose it were instead that entire communities of apes were turned into hairless clumsy things by a virus. Unable to compete with unaltered apes, they were forced onto the plains, where they spent long treks trying to scrounge up food and not be eaten by predators. The fittest weren't the humans- they were the apes, and the less fit got the less ideal living conditions. So evolution in this case had the less fit thrive (since there were far more plains than jungle). How many scientists would use evidence of such actions to show that humans are inferior to apes?

We've all heard the white superiority theories about how black people are inferior because their skulls are closer to an ape's than a white man's. And we all abhor such theories. But most of us simply accept 'fittest species' at face value, even though I don't see much evidence of it.

Darwin himself had no knowledge of genes. His survival of the fittest was only on a micro level, where the best/strongest/smartest of a species would become the dominant, and the less dominant would die out from lack of reproduction. There is no reason why it would occur to him that an alteration would affect not one creature but a hundred or a thousand. Enough that it would be sustainable as its own culture, one that would switch environments and not challenge the unaltered creature, whether it was more fit or less.

So anyhow, that wass my point about primitive and modern horses earlier. If a herd of wild horses were mutated into modern horses within a generation or two of each other, it would be natural for them to breed with each other and the primitives to breed with each other. The modern horses would move off to different pastures and whether they even could crossbreed with primitive horses would be moot.

[JLOL]

Gerben42, on Jan 28 2009, 07:35 AM, said:

Quote

I expect many issues will effect Iceland tourney ...today. The government fell. The banks fell.

So, was the government in a doubled contract? It won't affect the tournament at all. There will be a new government. And next year, there will be a new tournament too where people can try to do better than last time

Great thanks

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Jan 28 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

Quote

Darwinism is used as a superiority complex.  It's a giant ego-stroking mechanism.  It says that since humans evolved from apes, that we must be more fit than apes, otherwise children which showed the gene would have been unable to reproduce. 

Wow! Where do you get these ideas?



It is precisely because evolution by natural selection (let's call it darwinism even tho that is an overly simplistic name for a theory with many schools of thought and much modification resulting from the accrual of evidence over the years, compared to darwin's original ideas) connotes no notion of inherent moral or intrinsic superiority that it is so reviled by the religious fundamentalists.

The religious believe (at least, it appears that the majority believe) that 'man' is somehow 'special'. That we are created in the image of god, or that we have dominion over the earth and all of the other organisms that inhabit the earth, etc (I know... this is a judeo-christian myth that I am specifically addressing).

Darwinism says only that we are the coincidental, non-purposeful result of billions of years of evolution... exactly as is every other organism currently alive.

It was an evolutionist who expressed the idea (I am paraphrasing, my memory is inadequate and the source materials are not readily available to me) that based on evolutionary success, god favours the beetle!

Also, again, based on evolutionary success, the bacteria are far, far more successful, as a group, than any other group.. most of the biomass of the earth is made up of bacteria. Heck, 10% of our own body mass is, I gather, made up of bacteria, and the same is presumably true for most large animals.

If ecological catastrophe or a massive asteroid strike were to wipe out most of life on earth, the bacteria will survive the best... so which form of live is best fitted to reproduce? Not us. Not even the rat or the cockroach. My vote goes for one of the species of bacteria that live within the earth's crust or at the bottom of the oceans.

So, this nonsense about darwinism being an ego stroke is absurd.

I started to try to write about your comical explications of massive, overnight or very short term mutations, impacting an entire species without exception, and then realized that I was (1) probably wasting my time and (2) better advised to suggest you read some books on the topic.. if you already have read them and still don't get it, nothing I write will help. And anyone who interpretes darwinism as an argument for the superiority of the human race is obviously profoundly confused about darwinism.

[helene_t]

Matthew, I don't know where you got that silly "evolution" theory you are referring to. Sounds like one of the caricatures of evolutionary theory that are sometimes presented by creationists, or by nazis who think evolutionary theory backs their ideology.

Darwin disliked the phrase "survival of the fittest" for basically the reason you describe. Wallace liked it because it was a nice-sounding sales slogan for their theory.

Modern evolutionary theory is a theory of the selfish gene rather than the selfish organism or species. From what you muse about mutant-causing viruses it sounds like you would find Dawkin's "The extended phenotype" inspiring.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Darwinism is used as a superiority complex. It's a giant ego-stroking mechanism. It says that since humans evolved from apes, that we must be more fit than apes, otherwise children which showed the gene would have been unable to reproduce.

I think you are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding natural selection. The theory says nothing about humans being more fit than apes. The theory simply states that mutations occur, and then circumstances select if that mutation causes a greater, lesser, or neutral benefit for mating. You also appear not to distinguish the slow and subtle alterations that would occur, the small steps taken between apes and humans.

Quote

Darwin came to understand that any population consists of individuals that are all slightly different from one another.  Those individuals having a variation that gives them an advantage in staying alive long enough to successfully reproduce are the ones that pass on their traits more frequently to the next generation. Subsequently, their traits become more common and the population evolves.  Darwin called this "descent with modification."

Considering the human "population", it consists of individuals that are all slightly different from one another. Agree? Would it be consistent with natural selection for groups with darker skin to live longer and do better in equitorial climates and desert climates that light-skinned individuals? That is all natural selection says. In the process there would be all manner of variations in skin color, but over time the ones who benefit the most have the best chance to pass on genes. The most significant part of the natural selection process is not mutation but TIME.

Quote

The Galápagos finches provide an excellent example of this process.  Among the birds that ended up in arid environments, the ones with beaks better suited for eating cactus got more food.  As a result, they were in better condition to mate.  Similarly, those with beak shapes that were better suited to getting nectar from flowers or eating hard seeds in other environments were at an advantage there.  In a very real sense, nature selected the best adapted varieties to survive and to reproduce.  This process has come to be known as natural selection.

Quote

Darwin did not believe that the environment was producing the variation within the finch populations.  He correctly thought that the variation already existed and that nature just selected for the most suitable beak shape and against less useful ones.  By the late 1860's,  Darwin came to describe this process as the "survival of the fittest."   This is very different from Lamarck's incorrect idea that the environment altered the shape of individuals and that these acquired changes were then inherited.

However, it is difficult to overcome 19th century superstitions.

Quote

Nineteenth century critics of Darwin thought that he had misinterpreted the Galápagos finch data.  They said that God had created the 13 different species as they are and that no evolution in beak shape has ever occurred.  It was difficult to conclusively refute such counter arguments at that time.  However, 20th century field research has proven Darwin to be correct

Intelligent Design or Ignorance by Design?

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jan 28 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

I started to try to write about your comical explications of massive, overnight or very short term mutations, impacting an entire species without exception

It's not an entire species, it's an entire community. Surely it's not to hard to imagine that if a virus causes a mutation, and everybody in a community catches the illness, then everybody in the community will be affected. Nor should it be especially shocking if the community in question should interbreed with themselves instead of those outside the community. So no natural selection actually takes place, at least not more than would happen between two unrelated species.

What I am finding, more and more, is that people insist that "modern evolution" was right all along...even when it directly contradicts what "modern evolution" was when I learned about it 20 years ago, or when my father learned it 50 years ago. The idea that some creatures could cause themselves to be more likely to mutate in times of stress, the idea that genetic changes could pass in other ways then from parent to child, the idea of mass mutations, and so forth didn't exist 20 years ago. Modern Evolution is to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, means whatever you say it means.

I think the comparison to the Theory of Gravity is an excellent one. While the math hasn't changed for five hundred years, the actual Theory of Gravity has undergone enormous changes in the last generation or two. Even something as simple as the speed of gravity cannot be agreed upon, and may in fact not be a constant. People discuss the Theory of Gravity as settled fact, but in fact what the Theory of Gravity is is a moving target.

I liken the argument to that of Modern Medicine vs. Christian Scientists. People who don't "believe" in Modern Medicine are considered heretics by scientists, and can even have their children forcibly removed from their care to be "taken care of" by Modern Medicine doctors. And yet, when we test medicines nowadays, we compare them with a group given placebos. We do this because we've found that people who simply believe that they've been given medicine heal faster than people who don't believe it. This isn't just for depression or headaches- this is for diabetes, for cancer, and for other lethal illnesses. People are cured by placebos. People are being cured by their own faith. And yet, that's simply accepted and taken into account by Modern Medicine. Just what, four generations ago the idea that a sugar pill could cure cancer at any rate at all would have gotten you kicked out of medical school. Now it's accepted as science. But nobody goes around saying that Modern Medicine has been disproved.

Modern Evolution is a faith, not a science. Whenever it is disproven, whatever takes its place gets the name Modern Evolution and people insist that it hasn't changed. It doesn't even qualify as a theory anymore.

I mean, seriously, what would it take to disprove Modern Evolution in your eyes? If it were shown that it wasn't random events to individuals, but affected entire communities at once, would that disprove it to you? If it turned out that "lower order" creatures could deliberately mutate to adapt, would this disprove Modern Evolution in your eyes? How about if evidence appeared that the Earth was only a couple of million years old, and we'd been misreading the geologic timetable? Would that disprove it? Is there anything possible that would disprove Modern Evolution in your eyes?

Or, is it simply a faith that scientists have done their best to explore evolution, and will continue to do so, never mind the details?

Winston:

Quote

I think you are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding natural selection. The theory says nothing about humans being more fit than apes. The theory simply states that mutations occur, and then circumstances select if that mutation causes a greater, lesser, or neutral benefit for mating. You also appear not to distinguish the slow and subtle alterations that would occur, the small steps taken between apes and humans.

But in fact there isn't actually any evidence of small steps. We thought that Neanderthals were a small step, but there isn't any evidence that they 'evolved' into humans- they seem to have co-existed with modern humans and eventually were wiped out. Cro-Magnons were thought to be a small step, but in fact it looks like they were genetically indistinguishable from modern humans. If anybody has any evidence of "missing links", I'll take a look, but it looks like indeed humans may have developed out of apes overnight.

And I have to ask again- if evidence does come out that it was a single, large step and not the natural selection of selfish genes, would this shake your belief in Modern Evolution? Or would you simply accept the new theory as being Modern Evolution and insist that you'd been right all along?

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Jan 29 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

And I have to ask again- if evidence does come out that it was a single, large step and not the natural selection of selfish genes, would this shake your belief in Modern Evolution? Or would you simply accept the new theory as being Modern Evolution and insist that you'd been right all along?

well it's pretty obvious that you haven't read all the links posted, or that your understanding of what you read is naive and ignorant

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jan 29 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

Winston:

Quote

I think you are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding natural selection. The theory says nothing about humans being more fit than apes. The theory simply states that mutations occur, and then circumstances select if that mutation causes a greater, lesser, or neutral benefit for mating. You also appear not to distinguish the slow and subtle alterations that would occur, the small steps taken between apes and humans.

But in fact there isn't actually any evidence of small steps.

Sure there is. Those tshirts that show the timeline from a hunched over ape to a fat man sitting at a computer.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Jan 29 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

And I have to ask again- if evidence does come out that it was a single, large step and not the natural selection of selfish genes, would this shake your belief in Modern Evolution? Or would you simply accept the new theory as being Modern Evolution and insist that you'd been right all along?

If new studies of the earth showed that the reason it was in orbit around the sun was that it was attached to the sun by giant bungee cords, of a substance that was previously impossible to detect, and the evidence was overwhelming that this was the case, then I would cast aside my 'belief' in the existence of gravity. Until that, or something analogous happens, I will cling to my 'belief' in the validity of the existence of gravity as a force of nature.. even tho such a belief is founded on just a theory.... and, moreover, a theory that has evolved over time as more knowledge became available.

BTW, note that the currently accepted ideas of gravity, including the postulated but undetected graviton, are far different than Newton theorized.. yet we still speak of the theory of gravity.

So too do we speak of the theory of evolution based on variation and natural selection, even tho the ideas that currently hold sway are far more elaborate and, in important details, different from the ideas of Wallace and Darwin.

So, if clear evidence came to light showing that a complex feature such as an eye (as we know it) suddenly appeared on an organism with nothing similar in its immediate ancestor, I would, if the evidence were shown to be solid and verifiable, be astounded, and delighted.. a new wonder... a new insight into the intricacies of the world.. a new thing to learn and think about. It hasn't, as far as I am aware, happened yet. BTW, IF such an event were reported, I confess I would remain sceptical of it until sufficiently reputable observers tested the phenonemun and reported that it was valid. But I wouldn't persist in refusing to accept the result.

The irony is that theists DON'T react this way. Theists hear of well-researched, solid facts and go into denial. I, and I suspect Richard and Josh and Helene, etc, would simply want to know more and to seek to understand the phenonemum, yet the theists, whose entire thought processes operate under the constraints of cognitive dissonance, think that we are like them! That we are wedded to our 'belief' as they are. Weird.. but just more proof, if any were needed, that rationality is a rationed trait.

[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on Jan 29 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

Surely it's not to hard to imagine that if a virus causes a mutation, and everybody in a community catches the illness, then everybody in the community will be affected. Nor should it be especially shocking if the community in question should interbreed with themselves instead of those outside the community. So no natural selection actually takes place, at least not more than would happen between two unrelated species.

I don't know if there is any evidence for such a thing ever having happened but it strikes me as unlikely, because vira don't insert their DNA into specifc loci of the host genome. So even if a single strain of vira tranfered the same DNA sequence into many individuals in the same community it wouldn't make a single new gene prevalent. It's cool that you are able to speculate about alternative ways for new species to evolve but do you have any evidence for it ever having happened, let alone that it could be an important principle in evolution? I think it's pretty far-fetched what you suggest but you could write a good science fiction novel.

But yes, year 2008 books of evolution contradict year 1970 books somewhat although most of what was agreed on then still stands. What else would you expect? If nothing had changed over the last 40 years you could rightly accuse biologists for having wasted taxpayer's money.

[Trumpace]

jtfanclub, on Jan 29 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

And yet, when we test medicines nowadays, we compare them with a group given placebos.  We do this because we've found that people who simply believe that they've been given medicine heal faster than people who don't believe it.

Quoting JLOL: "LOL".

I am probably ignorant, but I found this funny for some reason. Don't bother to respond

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Jan 29 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

The irony is that theists DON'T react this way. Theists hear of well-researched, solid facts and go into denial. I, and I suspect Richard and Josh and Helene, etc, would simply want to know more and to seek to understand the phenonemum, yet the theists, whose entire thought processes operate under the constraints of cognitive dissonance, think that we are like them! That we are wedded to our 'belief' as they are. Weird.. but just more proof, if any were needed, that rationality is a rationed trait.

I guess it depends which theists and which atheists you hang out with. I know theists who are far more scientifically minded and flexible in their beliefs than a great number of atheists. That's not to dispute your statement as a generalization, but it's far from universal.

[Winstonm]

Quote

People are cured by placebos. People are being cured by their own faith. And yet, that's simply accepted and taken into account by Modern Medicine.

Although I am not an expert, this is treading into my field - and I am unaware of any such studies that validate these claims. I would be interested in seeing the source for my own edification. Thanks.

Quote

But in fact there isn't actually any evidence of small steps. We thought that Neanderthals were a small step, but there isn't any evidence that they 'evolved' into humans- they seem to have co-existed with modern humans and eventually were wiped out. Cro-Magnons were thought to be a small step, but in fact it looks like they were genetically indistinguishable from modern humans. If anybody has any evidence of "missing links", I'll take a look, but it looks like indeed humans may have developed out of apes overnight.

And I have to ask again- if evidence does come out that it was a single, large step and not the natural selection of selfish genes, would this shake your belief in Modern Evolution? Or would you simply accept the new theory as being Modern Evolution and insist that you'd been right all along?

To answer your last question, I would need strong proof of the validity of the claim, but if it were strong proof I would change my mind. I follow the thinking here of John Maynard Keynes who once said, "When the facts change I chagne my mind. What do you do, sir?"

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jan 29 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 29 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

The irony is that theists DON'T react this way. Theists hear of well-researched, solid facts and go into denial. I, and I suspect Richard and Josh and Helene, etc, would simply want to know more and to seek to understand the phenonemum, yet the theists, whose entire thought processes operate under the constraints of cognitive dissonance, think that we are like them! That we are wedded to our 'belief' as they are. Weird.. but just more proof, if any were needed, that rationality is a rationed trait.

I guess it depends which theists and which atheists you hang out with. I know theists who are far more scientifically minded and flexible in their beliefs than a great number of atheists. That's not to dispute your statement as a generalization, but it's far from universal.

I think he is referring to the ones who frequently participate in the water cooler. Several immediately come to mind who have outright said something along the lines of "both sides are the same, you are accepting things on faith just like we are, we have investigated our beliefs just like you have" etc etc etc.

[Fluffy]

Winstonm, on Jan 30 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

Although I am not an expert, this is treading into my field - and I am unaware of any such studies that validate these claims. I would be interested in seeing the source for my own edification. Thanks.

Don't you watch TV series about medics? lol.

Nevermind, this raise another though, I have talked to 2 dfferent people who have some knowdlege of both oriental medicine (Accupunture and such) and occidental medicine.

They both claimed that it was astounding obvious that best medicine was to combine both of them, but that pharmaceuticals didn't want to lose some of their benefits and were pressing everywhere to not let Chinise medicine get to hospitals.

[jdonn]

Winston, please correct me if I'm wrong, but to clarify for others I believe when he read this:

Quote

People are cured by placebos. People are being cured by their own faith. And yet, that's simply accepted and taken into account by Modern Medicine.

And said this:

Quote

Although I am not an expert, this is treading into my field - and I am unaware of any such studies that validate these claims. I would be interested in seeing the source for my own edification. Thanks.

He was referring to the third sentence, not the second. At least to my knowledge, the fact that people on placebos often experience improvement has been extensively studied, not merely 'accepted' by modern medicine.

[Winstonm]

Josh,

More precisely I know of no valid studies that verify this claim.

Quote

People are cured by placebos

There have been rare cases of spontaneous remissions of cancer - but in no way is that the same as being healed by either faith or placebos.

[Winstonm]

Fluffy, on Jan 29 2009, 08:32 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 30 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

Although I am not an expert, this is treading into my field - and I am unaware of any such studies that validate these claims.  I would be interested in seeing the source for my own edification.  Thanks.

Don't you watch TV series about medics? lol.

Nevermind, this raise another though, I have talked to 2 dfferent people who have some knowdlege of both oriental medicine (Accupunture and such) and occidental medicine.

They both claimed that it was astounding obvious that best medicine was to combine both of them, but that pharmaceuticals didn't want to lose some of their benefits and were pressing everywhere to not let Chinise medicine get to hospitals.

Accupunture is a treatment - and yes, it has been shown to be effective in treating certain types of problems. There are many holistic treatments that nursing has studied and shown to be beneficial to healing such as music therapy to help pain. None of these are substitutes for actual medicines, though.

The reason Christian Scientists can have their children taken away for treatment is because without treatment the children die far more often than they should.