National Geographic asks: "Was Darwin Wrong?"

[BurtWorm]

And begins its answer with a giant NO.


http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html


Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories.

Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system." The late Srila Prabhupada, of the Hare Krishna movement, explained that God created "the 8,400,000 species of life from the very beginning," in order to establish multiple tiers of reincarnation for rising souls. Although souls ascend, the species themselves don't change, he insisted, dismissing "Darwin's nonsensical theory."

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Good! Evolution is a FACT. Creation is a Mere OPINION!!!

[bryant69]

6. The debate though is Evolution as the origin of the human race

I mean evolution or natural selection as happening around us is scientific fact. Evolution as the origin of humanity . . . well, reasonable people can disagree on that point.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

8. You mean it's reasonable to argue that human origins might be different

from all other species' origins?

[bryant69]

26. Yes.

Why not?

But obviously we have strayed into a religious discussion. There are a couple of theories--one is that the bible is literally accurate--there was an Adam and Eve, and they are the parents of the human race. There's a second theory that suggests that the biblical account is so much crap, and that evolution is the answer, and anybody who believes the biblical account must be a total idiot. A third possibility, which is the idea that evolution was somehow guided by a God and that the biblical account is largely true but not literally true. This method does get past some of the more problemattic parts of the evolutionary theory. (what good does evolving half an eye or a wing get you?)

[immoderate]

28. Hey Bryant

You make up stuff to fit your beliefs. That's called catechism.

Take a course in comparative anatomy.

"Gee, this scientific stuff is hard work. Magic is so much easier to understand!'

--IMM

[bryant69]

49. Gosh that's nice.

I apppreciate you looking out for my welfare like that.

Bryant

[immoderate]

72. Sorry. Didn't mean to.

The world in general benefits from more informed people though.

--IMM

[immoderate]

73. Can you see there is an implied contradiction

in evolution that's guided by the hand of god? What is that but slow creationism?

Excuse my impatience. I seriously think that people should have had exposure to other than supernatural explanations in school. And OK, maybe there was rudeness there. For that I'm really sorry.

But I'm not cured.

--IMM

[bryant69]

115. Who said anything about teaching creationism in schools?

If I gave the impression that I favored that, I'm sorry. The best you can do is maybe acknowledge that there are other beliefs (i.e. Creationism), and even that is problemattic.

But truthfully what you seem to have a problem with is people who don't agree with your theory.

[immoderate]

125. It's not my theory

And I don't have a problem with people, generally. And I don't really have a problem with hypothesizing and speculating in general.

But if you are trying to promote knowledge, and start off with a premise that contains internal contradictions, or ignores well established observation, I will try to step in on the side of knowledge.

If you have the goods, and can correct my misconceptions, I'll accept them, as I have done many times. Sometimes I wonder what we're here for. Can you stand someone disagreeing with you? Good.

But what should happen to someone who says something silly?

"My" theory states, for instance, that the earth is round. what should I say to someone who says the earth is flat?

--IMM

[Merlin]

201. But that IS the issue at hand. That's the whole problem right now.

In every state of the union, fundamentalists have organized pressure groups to get the state boards of education to mandate teaching Creationism in lieu of or alongside of Evolution in SCIENCE classes. They are having enormous success at this.

[BurtWorm]

32. The key word is "reasonable"

Does reason lead one to start with the assumption that the bible is literally accurate? No. Does it lead one to start with the assumption that the bible is largely but not literally true? No. In order to believe that a holy book written several thousand years ago gives an accurate picture of cosmological origins, you must have faith. Reason is not an issue at all.

[0rganism]

33. You may want to brush up on the ToE before you call it problematic

What good is "half an eye"? Well, you have to decide what you mean by "half an eye", first. Do you mean a literal half-eye, like you chopped an eye in half? Or do you mean a set of cells that are light sensitive and assist in guiding motion and finding food, like a euglanoid has? One makes sense in this context, the other is just silly.

And what is "half a wing"? Maybe it starts as a membrane on the forelegs that assists those that have it in making larger leaps in avoiding predators or catching prey.

These organs and appendages don't evolve in a vacuum. They happen in the context of a larger cycle of mutations and adaptive pressures. Once a mutation provides an adaptive advantage in a population, the genetic drift towards speciation and specialization can happen relatively quickly.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. Ahhh, a "Blind Watchmaker" reader.

Dawkins deconstructs the "what good is half an eye" argument beautifully.

[pauliedangerously]

97. An excellent addition to "Blind Watchmaker"

Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." Lots of references to Dawkins...great read for "logical, boring realists."

He used some really cool extended metaphors to illustrate points.

I found it a lot more interesting than "Consciousness Explained."

A five star read, IMO.

[bryant69]

54. Well that might be a good idea (reading up a bit more on it)

Certainly a more reasonable response than, "You're making stuff up."

I don't think however, that I'll find that Evolution as the origin of the species is a completely proven theory that is irrefutable.

Any books you'd suggest?

[0rganism]

66. talkorigins.org is the best source I know of for ToE material

While it's not a "book" in itself, it's an excellent introduction to the subject, many of its articles written by currently-practicing professional biologists and paleontologists, with extensive bibliographies.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

You'll want to read the FAQ first. A lot of otherwise-complicated things are laid out there as simply and quickly as possible. For example,

> I don't think however, that I'll find that Evolution as the origin
> of the species is a completely proven theory that is irrefutable.

This shows a basic confusion about the role of scientific theory in general, and the notion of "irrefutability" of hypothesis in particular. All scientific theory is, by its very nature, refutable -- i.e., there is some set of observations which would invalidate it. One might say it's part of the definition of science that it be capable of adapting to observations. The body of scientific endeavor represents humanity's epistemological "best we can do" at any given time, rather than some core set of absolute truths.

The talkorigins FAQ can help you with this.

[pauliedangerously]

98. I've had that site bookmarked for over a year...

Well worth the visit.

[MattBaggins]

76. Pythagorean THEOREM, Shortest distance between two points...

Can't prove them completely either.

[immoderate]

80. I have seen several proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem

Points and lines are however, undefined terms, since you have to start somewhere.

But I am not a professor of math. Have some questions about qualifying proven with completely.

--IMM

[pabloseb]

103. I'm a mathematician...

Math is just a formal game. The Pythagoras theorem is true in the context of the axioms of classic geometry. It's not a factual truth. However, it's a positive consequence of the axioms people have agreed to play with.

The fact that mathematical models -including the Pythagorean theorem- are extremely useful in natural sciences do not contradict the previous paragraph.

Natural science is a whole different story. That the sun will rise tomorrow can't be proved with absolute certainty (and in a sense it's false since it's the earth that's moving), but everybody is absolutely convinced that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow. Although not everybody is convinced, the empirical evidence in favor of the theory of evolution is as strong as the evidence that the sun will continue shining tomorrow, if not more.

Details about how evolution works are still widely discussed in the cientific community, but there's absolute agreement regarding the basics. And the agreement is the result of overwhelming evidence of many types, including of course evidence that we humans are nothing special in regards to evolution.

It's still possible, I guess, to believe that God created the world 6,000 years ago and planted all this evidence to mislead the poor humans. In my view, I don't know why God would care about that, but I don't object to anybody's faith. However, claiming that a literal interpretation of the bible is consistent with empirical evidence is simply not sustainable.

[mike_c]

82. good science is never irrefutable....

But let's step back and realize that there are multiple issues being debated here under the general umbrella of "evolution." Evolution simply means change through time. Most biologists (and I am one of them) understand the term to refer to change in gene allele frequency within a population of organisms through time. In that strict sense "evolution" is irrefutable. It is an observable fact. Anyone who tells you differently is uninformed, or a liar. There is nothing "speculative" about this-- it is as observable as the rising of the sun. You might recognize this as "microevolution."

Now there are two questions which arise from the observation that evolution-- in the strict sense of change in allele frequency-- occurs in nature. First, what are the mechanisms of evolution? Second, does microevolution lead to speciation, or macroevolution?

The first question has been addressed experimentally to the point where a number of mechanisms, e.g. genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection (and a few others), are accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists on the strength of massive amounts of evidence in support of each. The second conclusion-- that the observed mechanisms of microevolution lead to speciation-- is a logical construct that is also supported by a HUGE amount of both observational and experimental data. To suggest otherwise is comparable to suggesting that the Earth is flat.

Are these data and the conclusions they lead to "refutable?" Of course they are, but the important point is that a MASSIVE effort has been expended to refute them and it has been entirely unsuccessful. That effort has considerably expanded our understanding of biological evolution, but it has further solidified the evidence in support of the general principle.

But the important point that most non-biologists miss is that evolution is a directly observable phenomenon, as real as gravity and taxes.

[bryant69]

114. I do realize this point

But I should have been more careful in distinguishing between Evolution as a currently occuring phenomonem and Evolution as the origin of the species--they are two distinct issues, although obviously interconnected.

[BurtWorm]

159. Mike C, thank you for this biology lesson!

You're an excellent explainer. :toast:

[Merlin]

202. Where is the "HUGE" support for macro?

There are other legitimate theories, not incompatible with evolution, which obviate the requirement for speciation.

I know of no "HUGE amount of both observational and experimental data" to support what you admit to be a "logical construct."

Surely, however, there IS plenty of actual evidenct to support microevolution. The baby born several months ago with a highly developed muscular system is evidence that mutations occur, and it is not hard to conceive that if/when he breeds he may pass this advanced physiology along to his progeny which will then be more "fit" than his fellow humans, etc.

But macroevolution is another matter entirely.

It is a problem that science has insisted the Darwinian evolutionary concepts are flawless as a way of fending off the Creationists. Modifications in Darwinian theory are nearly inevitable. Yet, because one theory is not ENTIRELY accurate does not mean a certain piece of MYTHOLOGY then rises to the rational fore.

[The White Tree]

179. "Beak of the Finch" and "Song of the Dodo"

Both are excellent reads and great laymens books about Evolution.

The first by Jonathan Weiner won the Pulitzer Prize.

Whether you are a beginner or expert when it comes to the subject of evolution will make no difference. There is something for everyone in this book even if the reader isn't all that interested in science or evolution prior to reading.

Weiner compares and contrasts what researchers Rosemary and Peter Grant and those who worked on the Galapagos islands see and find with what Darwin saw and found. Although the Grants' view is very different from Darwin's view in many, if not most, cases, they both support natural selection. For instance, Darwin believed evolution occurred over very long periods of time and generally moved in a set direction toward fitness in the same direction the environment was heading. The Grants found that the environment fluctuates much quicker and is, for the most part, less headed in a particular direction (with the exception of global warming which is fairly consistent in mean temperature movement but not so consistent in its effects on El Niños and La Niñas). Because of the ebbs and flows of evolution, due in large part to the environment, it can be more easily witnessed and documented in real time, in some cases, than it can be through looking at the infrequently fossilizing instances of a given species over thousands or millions of years.

"Song of the Dodo" by David Quammen. The link is to a review
<http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues96/apr96/book_apr96.html>

This book talks about extintiction of species and how island repopulate.

Also, I'd suggest anything by Edward O. Wilson.

[starroute]

58. Half a wing is great if you've got four of them

It's a Microraptor, and they think it operated like a flying squirrel. The whole story is at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030122_dromaeosaur.html


Or how about a feathery little brother of T. rex?



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html

[Pepperbelly]

65. one thing really bothers me about evolution ...

When you look at species like felines, through ToE and NS, we know that mutations that are advantageous to the animal are encouraged through higher survivability and then passing on genes to offspring who would incorporate the mutation and pass it along as well. And with felines, we see such a huge diversity of animals that evolved to fill all of the niches available, from bobcats to snow leopards to lions to cheetahs.

But we haven't seen that in humanity. Oh ... to be sure, there are some variations among humans but no diversity to fill all niches. IOW, there are no 'bobcats' to our lions. And no snow leopards either. My problem is if the notions I outlined about felines in the first paragraph are true, why are they not true as well about us?

[0rganism]

68. About 200000 years ago there were several species of "homonins"

In Europe, homo neanderthalensis was sort of a homonin snow leopard, if you like. homo erectus was dieing out, although it had spread to south Asia. In Africa, homo sapiens archaic was evolving into homo sapiens sapiens from homo erectus.



Having one homonin species is a fairly recent thing, really. One can only wonder what kinds of events happened that led to the die-out of our evolutionary cousins, whether it was widespread poor hunting or genocide by homo sapiens sapiens or a catastrophic disease or something else entirely. It's fairly clear that for the past 30,000 years or so, we've been insufficiently geographically isolated to speciate, and our current configuration seems "compatible" with most Terran norms (even if our lifestyle isn't). Barring some extreme collapse of civilization and/or radical climate change, I expect genetic exchange among humans will continue to overwhelm mutations when they happen.

Heck, if shrub gets re-elected, he might just put an end our species as we know it within his term. Millions of years from now, evolved cockroach paleontologists will dig up our fossils and garbage dumps and wonder what this species was that was so successful that it covered the whole globe and so unsuccessful that it croaked within 100000 years of its beginning.

[MattBaggins]

77. Yes there are

Given our motor dexterity, language capacity, and self awareness; we are all lions, cheetahs, and snow leopards.

[mike_c]

84. a couple of possibilities come to mind...

...although I should caution that I'm an ecologist and not an anthropologist, but the ancestral lineages of most animal groups contain LOTS more extinctions than successes, which is certainly true of the hominid line. Further, I think it's a mistake to compare hominids to cats directly-- it might be more appropriate to compare primates to cats, in which case humans are one extant primate just as tigers are one extant feline, but in both instances there is considerable other extant diversity. Finally, if multiple hominid species have co-occurred-- and I'm not certain whether there is any consensus about this-- then I would expect that competitive exclusion should operate fiercely, and that there has never been sufficient time for niche divergence to limit any (speculative) interspecific hominid competition.

[indigobusiness]

147. We're more like pachyderms

with shorter memories.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

52. You forgot something

"There's a second theory that suggests that the biblical account is so much crap, and that evolution is the answer, and anybody who believes the biblical account must be a total idiot and all those nasty atheists and their godless "science" are out to get me waaah waaah waaah"

[bryant69]

55. This is nice too.

Are you saying that some Athiests don't have the opinon I expressed? What do you think of religious people?

[charlie]

62. No, but you could've left it off

There's nothing about crap and idiots in the theory, that I know of.

Or you could've appended something to the other two about nonbelievers being not only idiots, but evil as well, and made the whole thing a wash. I've heard enough of that sort from the religious quarter.

[MattBaggins]

78. Actually if you read Richard Dawkins

you will find that he makes no attempt to hide his disdain for creation myths, and has indeed called religious people "idiots" on numerous occasions.

[MattBaggins]

75. Half an eye is better than no eye

A 1% increase in fitness over 1000 generations is enough to fix a new allele in a genetic sequence. It does not take perfection on the first try.

[jdj]

41. ancient astronauts, and all that jazz.

[BurtWorm]

42. Ahhh...

:crazy:

[DrWeird]

12. Reasonable? Nope.

Sure, people can disagree. But it's about as reasonable as arguing the earth is flat.

[blindpig]

14. how could it be a fact for everything but us?

that makes no sense to me.
You're on the bus or you're off the bus.

[0rganism]

29. which homonids are you willing to exclude from the process of evolution?

Are you only letting homo sapiens sapiens off the hook, or do you give some leeway to homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus, too? Does homo habilis get a bye, or do they have to evolve over millions of years like every other genus on the planet?

It doesn't make any sense to exclude humans from evolution, as far as I can tell. Our fossil record is one of the better ones, and from about 2 million years back we can trace the development of tools, too. I have so far heard no objection to the origins of humanity via evolution that I could call "reasonable".

[WoodrowFan]

48. homo sapiens evolved

but God created homo neanderthalensis in about 6,000 BC. It wasn't his best move and he hates to talk about it still. let's just say he miscaculated and leave it at that ok??

[ChickMagic]

170. "Evolution as origin of humanity"

That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution is merely the changes in frequency of alleles over time.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

15. But is natural selection a FACT???

There is a lot of evidence for evolution but very little for NS being the mechanism behind it. The idea that life can progress by making copying ERRORS during reproduction is pretty far-fetched. There is some good evidence that it works with simple life forms but with humans it's still debatable. The big argument for NS is that no one has yet come up with anything better and that is hardly proof.

[K-W]

18. You and this article do not agree.

Mostly because you are wrong.

[BurtWorm]

22. We're talking about billions or millions of years of selection

This is something that ID folks and their creationist ancestors can't seem to get their minds around.

[0rganism]

35. mutation + adaptive pressure = natural selection

Mutation is a change in DNA, not necessarily due to reproduction. Could be radiation, could be mutagenic chemicals, could be a virus. Without the adaptive pressure, mutations are likely to get "lost in the wash" and maybe disappear within a generation or two. But if there is some selective process that favors a mutation, it can lead to serious changes in the population fairly quickly.

I have seen no sound arguments for this process not being an adequate explanation for the evolution of life, human or otherwise.

[starroute]

38. Natural selection is not sufficient to explain evolution

A number of lines of evidence -- including computer simulations -- suggest that sometimes it is necessary for organisms to become slightly less fit for a while in order to explore new possibilities that will eventually lead to a genuine evolutionary leap.

Other observations suggest that evolutionary leaps start when an organism expands into a new ecological niche, and that natural selection kicks in after that to improve their fitness for the lifestyle they have already adopted. (For example, the anhinga is a diving bird whose feathers are not waterproof, so that it has to dry off in the sun between dives or risk drowning.) In general, organisms seem to be far more active agents in their own evolution that Darwinian theory admits.

There are also strong indications that, although it may be correct to speak of survival of the fittest, "fitness" doesn't mean what Darwinians generally think it means. For example, I believe it was Alfred North Whitehead who suggested that the organisms which are most likely to survive are those which act in a way which works to the advantage of their general surrounding and all their neighbors, and not just for their own short-term benefit. By that standard, it doesn't matter how rich you get -- if you do it by stomping everyone else into the dirt, you're an evolutionary failure.

[BurtWorm]

39. Darwinians don't mean the same as Spencerians re: survival of the fittest

Darwin doesn't argue that aggression is the sole determinant of a species' success. After all, rabbits and mice are very successful by Darwin's terms.

[starroute]

63. But Darwin would see rabbits and mice as succeeding by breeding . . .

faster than their predators can wipe them out. And that's not any more interesting than raw aggression.

The problem many people (including me) have with Darwin is that his mechanisms are so lowest-common-denominator -- mainly sex and aggression and not much else. Whitehead's view of ecosystems evolving as a whole through the mutual actions of all their members is far more holistic.

I believe that evolution is largely a matter of emergent systems and non-zero-sum games. The trouble with basing evolutionary theory around "survival" is that survival itself is a non-evolutionary concept -- it doesn't provide any basis for seeing human beings as more evolved than, say, cockroaches.

Once we get from "survival" to something like "ability to make a given amount of energy go further and do more interesting things with it," we'll have a theory of evolution that is truly evolutionary.

[immoderate]

81. I think that highly evolved forms

Use more energy and do less with it.

--IMM

[BurtWorm]

109. Nature is what it is, and we may not like it the way it is

but our wishes of what it should be are irrelevant in our attempts to describe it. If Darwin's view of natural selection is too bleak for you, it may be because natural selection is bleak--in other words, more the "fault" of nature than of Darwin.

[starroute]

118. With all due respect, I don't agree with a word of that

If Darwin's view of natural selction is bleak, it is because it is a reflection of mid-19th century materialistic philosophy and the painful birth of modern industrial society -- and neither of those has very much to do with nature.

Nature can be harsh at times -- especially if you're not at the top of the food chain -- but it's far from bleak. It is, in fact, beautiful, amazing, profound, dramatic, and deeply elegant.

Darwin's image of natural selection is none of these. It is crude, sloppy, wasteful, and automatistic. It came out of the 19th century attempt to redefine the entire universe in terms of Newtonian mechanics, where the ultimate reality consisted of nothing but small hard objects whizzing around in space and occasionally bumping into one another.

Darwin didn't manage to grind evolution down to quite that level, but he did his best by reducing the evolutionary mechanisms to the most minimal elements he could conceive of -- chiefly food and sex -- and tossing in some Malthusian fantasizing about the strong prevailing while the weak perish.

What I'm waiting for is an evolutionary theory based on love, imagination, and natural affinities.

[BurtWorm]

124. I don't see Darwin's view as bleak, but you clearly do.

You seem to want a view of nature that uplifts. That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. How does nature really behave? That's the question. Not how do I feel about how nature behaves.

[starroute]

132. No, I want a view of nature that encompasses all of nature

How does nature really behave? Sometimes in ways that are inexplicable by any standard theories.

I caught a few minutes of a nature show the night before last. There were seals giving birth to their pups onshore and killer whales waiting just offshore, teaching their children how to snatch an occasional pup from the beach and waiting for the banquet when the pups first tried to follow their parents to deep water.

At last, the great day came and the killer whales feasted on seal pup until they were full. But then something very strange happened. One killer whale, with its tummy so full of seal pup it just couldn't couldn't eat any more, found a seal pup wandering around and decided to return it where it belonged. So there came the killer whale, nudging the seal pup along with its nose and finally tossing it up safe and sound onto the beach.

Was it an altruistic gesture? A provident way of saving up for tomorrow? Or just a humorous statement on the part of a cetacean that was feeling really good and wanted to do something cockeyed to celebrate?

However you interpret it, there isn't any easy way to fit that into a Darwinian straitjacket.

[BurtWorm]

133. Darwin did not put straitjackets on anything.

I don't understand your hostility toward Darwin. You have a straitjacket on your reading of him. Darwin was a naturalist and a theorist. He had as holistic a view as any nineteenth century naturalist could have. You seem to be faulting him for not having the advantage of 150 years hindsight on his work.

[The White Tree]

182. I don't see Darwin's view as bleak either

Mind you I'm no expert, but I believe Darwin took great pains to point out the potential for Natural selection by pointing out real world situations during his time of what I believe he termed artificial selection (for example various breeds of dogs that were created by the slow selection of favorable traits). Darwin then used these examples along with the real world data he had collected and observed to formulate a hypothesis of how this type of selection could occur in nature. The most likely drivers of this were ability to survive and ability to pass favorable traits on to future generations that would also be able to pass them on in ways that allowed those traits to survive.

This is not necessarily survival of the fittest as it is survival of the most favorable traits in the environment at the time as well as any traits that do not inhibit survival and reproduction.

For example in Hawaii many of the bird species are ground dwelling or ground egg laying. This behavior evolved because there were no predators that capitalized on eating their eggs. Predators have since been introduced and it has had a catastrophic affect on the populations. However, somewhere there may be birds that have not been exposed to these predators that may have incidentally already evolved a defense against them. That defense is no good to the birds right now, but when the predators do show up they will already have innately evolved to a point where the predators are not a threat. Since the predators have devastated the rest of the population these birds will now have an opportunity to exploit more resources, survive and expand their population. Eventually they may become distinct to the point they are a new species.

Just my 2 (or maybe 20 cause it's so long) cents

:-)

[MattBaggins]

79. What the hell are Darwinians?

Please then, enlighten us what "fitness" means.

By the way Darwin never said survival of the fittest, and he was keenly aware of arguments for long term adaptation and altruism.

[BigMcLargehuge]

168. fitness, in Evolutionary Theory

is a measure of the number of offspring that reach sexual maturity and make more offspring. The fittest = the one that makes the most successfully reproducing offspring.

[Kenneth ken]

87. cool beans!

you talked about anhingas. :D Those were my favorite birds when I lived in FL. I liked how they would perch and spread their wings. I didn't know why they did that, just that it looked really cool.

My best guess was maybe it provided shading over the water near where they were so they could more easily see prey to go after. :shrug:

:hi:

[Selwynn]

192. It was indeed Whitehead, and he was totally right.

imo. :)

[stepnw1f]

70. Science Is About Dispproving A Theory

Until then, your dreamin'. Science should never interfere with your spirituality, by the way. If it does, then you are basing your believe on proof, not belief.

[indigobusiness]

149. Science and spirituality can be mutually reinforcing...

I never have understood this war between them.

[stepnw1f]

71. Science Is About Dispproving A Theory

Until then, your dreamin'. Science should never interfere with your spirituality, by the way. If it does, then you are basing your belief on proof, not belief.

[mike_c]

86. I don't even know where to begin correcting your misimpressions...

...but I suggest you pick up any good freshman biology text, e.g Campbell, or better yet a general treatment of evolutionary theory, e.g. Futyama, and read some of the papers cited in reference to natural selection. Natural selection is an OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON, just like the sunrise in the morning is an observable phenomenon. If the sunrise is a "fact," then so is natural selection.

The broader question is whether natural selection OR ANY OTHER MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION leads to speciation. Again, there is considerable observational and experimental evidence that it does.

I'm sorry, but I think you'd have trouble assembling more than a fraction of one percent of working biologists that disagree with the evidence that natural selection is one of the mechanisms of microevolution and speciation, and that's not because we're all operating under some collective delusion. Rather, it's because we've reviewed the evidence and accept it until something better comes along.

[Selwynn]

172. Are you a scientists? Your educational background?

I'd just like to know the level of your expertise.

[mike_c]

181. I am a working biologist with a Ph.D. in entomology....

My specific area of expertise is ecology, and I focus on insects in terrestrial and freshwater aquatic systems. I'm a professor at a California State University, so my time is divided about evenly between teaching and research, which is to say that I pretty much have no other life.... :)

[Selwynn]

194. I wasn't trying to be condescending - I was honestly asking.

It helps me to weigh opinions when I know the context from which the opinions are coming.

Thanks!

[mike_c]

198. I didn't take it that way...

...so no worries!

[Merlin]

203. Do you remember the baby born several months ago with highly...

advanced musculature? If/when that child procreates, his progeny will have a chance to share his genetic mutation and perpetuate it, thus propelling an evolutionary change in humans into a reality.

[bullimiami]

121. creation is NOT an "opinion" and evolution is not a "fact"

one is "myth" one is theory.

myth to explain the unknowable.
it is uncomfortable for some people to accept that there are somethings we just dont have the perspective to understand. space, time, the beginning of the universe, life and death.
some people just make shit up, the earth is on the back of a turtle, creationism, heaven, god. but they pretend it is fact and are not pleased to be questioned.


theory to explain the unknown accepting that we are not sure.
some people approach it from a scientific point of view. making suppositions, discussing and coming up with theories and educated guesses and understanding that they are just educated guesses based on the best information we have and may need to be modified when new data is included.

creationism may have once been a theory but then came darwin....

[immoderate]

126. One of the definitions of "theory"

is that it is a set of principles that explains observed phenomena, and in that sense, it is interchangeable with fact. Once an observation contradicts that theory, it is discarded.

Theory of atoms, theory of gravitation, thoery of relativity are, in common sense, facts. The job of scientists is to try to disprove them, or to extend the theory.

Educated guess is a different definition of theory.

--IMM

[Selwynn]

174. Yup, that is an important distinction.

[One_Life_To_Give]

166. Fact?

Evolution is like a rock at the bottom of a cliff. I may reason how it got there. But proving someone did not put it there? By definition it can't be done. Science doesn't allow the use of the "GOD" force for a reason. Any force that all powerful invalidates "I think, therefore I am"

So while it may not be scientific to claim that Sally put a rock at the base of the cliff. I cannot prove that she did not put it there. Eventhough erosion and gravity will continue to propel the rock down hill, regardless of how it got to where it currently is.

[Selwynn]

175. No, evolution is not a "fact"

In another thread, someone said that evolution is fact, like the law of gravity. But a scientist will tell you that it is currently the best scientific theory which fits the evidence we have, but no honest scientists places the THEORY of evolution alongside something like the LAW of gravity. Yet.

What I'm saying is, no scientist in their right mind would compare the theory of evolution to the law of gravity on earth, BECAUSE there is still to many unknowns and too much ongoing study and conjecturing about the origins of the planet and species and natural selection to call anything a "law." That's not saying I'm somehow anti-evolution. I accept the scientific community's assessment that it is currently the best *theory* to explain the facts, though it also has certain problems that do not currently have answers, as anyone will tell you.

Creationism has zero evidence to support it, which is why it is harder to swallow.

But in our zeal to reject superstition let's not become guilty for blind dogma either. Science is not about the quest for absolutes - it is about the corroboration, through conjecture and refutation, of evidence and the articulation of that evidence into plausible and data-backed hypothesis, leading to theory. Theory is never about saying "this is fact." It is about saying, "this is the best explanation we have to account for observable facts at this time, but as always this explanation is subject to change in light of new data from continuing investigation." That's the long-winded way to appropriately speak as a scientist (or any reasonable person) should speak.

[mike_c]

189. evolution is an observable phenomenon....

I'm not particularly interested in debating the semantics of whether it's a "fact" or not, or whether the "theory of evolution" is more or less well established than the "law of gravity." Personally, I think that any such discussion reveals preconceptions that many scientists would be uncomfortable with.

Gravity is an observable, measurable phenomenon. If you release a mass in the vicinity of another mass they will "fall" toward one another. You can measure and predict their respective accelerations, trajectories, and etc. The "law of gravity" is simply an quantitative description of that phenomenon.

Likewise, evolution by natural selection is an observable phenomenon. You can change the frequency of alleles in a population with genetic variation by manipulating the selective pressures operating on the range of phenotypes that population expresses (presuming heritability of traits, and etc). Natural environmental change has the same effect. Again, the phenomenon is observable, measurable, and predictable.

The term "theory of evolution" is a misnomer even in the sense that scientists usually use the term "theory," which as many here have pointed out does not mean "speculation." Again, evolution in the strict sense is an observable phenomenon-- there's not much more that can be said about that. It simply happens, just like cannon balls fall to earth. A more appropriate term for what most people-- even most biologists-- mean by "theory of evolution" might be "theory of speciation," because that better captures the essential core of the debate: is evolution-- by any means, including natural selection-- one of the driving forces behind speciation (or the primary driving force)?

Again, the consensus among biologists is overwhelmingly that evolution IS the driving force behind speciation. But there is no more uncertainty about the "reality" of evolution than there is about the ultimate fate of cannon balls dropped from the windows of leaning towers.

[Selwynn]

191. There is certainly a need to clarify terms, however...

there is a difference between the observable phenomenon of natural selection and the theory of species transformation and a unified evolutionary theory which accounts for the origin of all life.

In other words, my point is that its too simplistic to just say "evolution is fact" and walk away from some discussion. It is disingenuous, and really not even appropriate to say for anyone interested in acting like a scientist and not like a fundamentalist.

There IS an overwhelming consensus among biologists that the theory of evolution is the best speculative theory to answer the question of speciation, the origins of life on earth and in the universe, etc. - this is a consensus which is backed by evidence, and is not challenged by contradicting evidence (that I know of).

But it is not complete evidence, and the statements of scientists worth anything is that based on the evidence at hand, this theory and the speculation out to implied conclusions based on this theory is currently the best and most plausible theory.

To say anything else is to fall victim to the need and impulse to become overly dogmatic in the fact of religious fundamentalists challenges and denial of science. Science is not about the quest for facts, nor is it about a quest for absolute certainty. It is, in part, about the quest to find the best explanations for observable phenomenon, and where direct phenomenon is not observable, to look at secondary phenomenon or consequent observable elements and postulate hypothesis which would account for these things, and do so without evidence which contradicts the hypothesis, which therefore requires testing of conjectures.

The former applies to the observable phenomenon of natural selection. The latter applies to the theory of the origins of life and species.

[BurtWorm]

193. Dictionary definition of fact

Creationists might want to use definition 1, but as we're talking about a debate between points of view, definition 2 would seem more appropos.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact


Main Entry: fact
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality
2 : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial —see also finding of fact at FINDING, JUDICIAL NOTICE question of fact at QUESTION, TRIER OF FACT —compare LAW, OPINION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjudicative fact
: a fact particularly related to the parties to an esp. administrative proceeding —compare LEGISLATIVE FACT in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
collateral fact
: a fact that has no direct relation to or immediate bearing on the case or matter in question —compare MATERIAL FACT in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
constitutional fact
: a fact that relates to the determination of a constitutional issue (as violation of a constitutional right) —used esp. of administrative findings of fact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
evidentiary fact
: a fact that is part of the situation from which a case arises and that is established by testimony or other evidence called also mediate fact predicate fact —compare ULTIMATE FACT in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
legislative fact
: a fact of general social, economic, or scientific relevance that does not change from case to case —compare ADJUDICATIVE FACT in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
material fact
: a fact that affects decision making: as a : a fact upon which the outcome of all or part of a lawsuit depends b : a fact that would influence a reasonable person under the circumstances in making an investment decision (as in purchasing a security or voting for a corporate officer or action)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mediate fact
: EVIDENTIARY FACT in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
predicate fact
: EVIDENTIARY FACT in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ul·ti·mate fact
/'&l-ti-m&t-/
: a conclusion of law or esp. mixed fact and law that is necessary to the determination of issues in a case and that is established by evidentiary facts —compare EVIDENTIARY FACT in this entry—in fact : as a factual matter : established by fact rather than as a matter of law


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[Selwynn]

196. That's a good point. It's also a good point for not calling it fact.

Is it fact(1)? No. Is it fact(2)? Probably. Because "fact" can be interpreted different ways, as the dictionary helps is realize, I don't think "fact" is the best way to talk about a speculative scientific theory. That's why I prefer to keep saying what I have always said about evolution - it is currently the best theory to fit the facts we have at hand. Nothing more and nothing less. And that really shouldn't be a controversial claim. :)

Understand that to call something an evidentiary fact, it means that in theory, the evidence necessarily leads you to x conclusion without reasonable possibility of alternative. In other words, following logical deduction, you have no choice but to arrive at the conclusion. Then you can call something "fact" because the secondary evidence allows you to follow a deductive chain to that fact.

However, that's not the case with all science, because much of science is theoretical accounting for and explanation of things that we never have and never will directly observe. It is, but its very nature, theoretical. Science utilizes what C.S. Purse referred to as adductive inference or retroductive reasoning in many cases, and starts with an observed (and not explained) secondary fact, then attempts to formulate a theoretical explanation which would explain that secondary fact.

Karl Popper talks about the principle of falsification in science and continues that conjecture and refutation is essential to the scientific process. So that we then seek ways to attempt to disprove our theoretical explanation. The more times we attempt to falsify our conjecture and fail, the more that conjecture stands up to scrutiny. But it is not a deductive logical chain, the explanation is not a evidentiary fact, it is a "sound" or "strong" theory which accounts for the secondary facts we do have.

I completely fail to see why this is a point of argument. It seems so obvious that I'm not sure what the issue is. I believe that the theory of evolution is at present the best theory to account for the observable data that we have, and I am not aware of evidence that contradicts it. I am not a literal creationist because I can find no observable evidence or data to support the idea, and I can find a lot of contradictory evidence to refute the notion.

But "fact" is a term that gets raped and abused by a lot of people on all sides of almost any issue. Once again, I state the obvious: religious fundamentalism is a quest for dogmatic absolutes, science is not. Science is not a quest for "fact." To act like it is would be to deny the very heart of the scientific method, in which any previously held theory not matter how sacredly held would be discarded in light of new evidence which contradicted it. Science is not about absolutes or certainty - EVER. It is about the postulation of conjectures based on observable phenomena which sufficiently account for all the *present* data, stand up to scrutiny, and are not contradicted or refuted by other observable data, AND remain open to new data.

In other words, a real scientist says, this explanation is the best explanation we've got that accounts for all the observable data we've got without contradiction - when that changes, we'll modify our theory to keep it consistent with what we know and observe. That's science. The continuing open-mindedness to new evidence, and the ongoing examination and scrutiny of existing theories. Science is not dogmatic, nor absolutist. It is honest about what we know AND what we don't know. That is the ONLY thing that makes it better than religious fundamentalism.

Sel

[mike_c]

199. I agree with you....

I must confess to being probably a bit too sensitive about discussing this particular topic with non-scientists (or people whose credentials are hidden by the anonymity of a discussion board). I've grown tired of beating my head against the wall to educate people-- and I do mean educate, not indoctrinate-- who don't necessarily want to reconsider their preconceptions.

[Merlin]

204. BINGO. We have the definitive answer. Well said!

I might add only that the mere fact that Evolutionary theory may not yet be perfect does not constitute the slightest bit of evidentiary support for a mythological explanation of biodiversity.

[NoodleBoy]

2. I expected a piece-of-shit article doubting evolution

and was presently suprised to see the first word of the article being NO.

[BurtWorm]

7. Me too. They've been very brave lately.

They've taken a strong position on global warming, for example, and did a major piece on peak oil.

[RapidCreek]

91. They've been very brave for a reason...MONEY!

About six months ago a fellow working for NG called my home and asked if I would be interested in renewing my subscription. I replied I would not.....and likely never would. He asked me why. I responded that I found the recent conservative, pro war, evangelical bent of the publication not only repulsive but contradictory to everything NG ever stood for.

I was surprised by his response. He said, "Ok, I understand. Quite a few of our subscribers have been expressing similar sentiments, I'll be passing your opinion along to the publisher if you don't mind". I replied "By all means, though I doubt it will do much good". He told me that I might be surprised....and reiterated that I was one of a multitude of 15 year+ subscribers who over the past five years have told NG to keep their magazine....He then thanked me for my time and frankness and asked that I not write NG off entirely.

Evidently NG is returning to it's roots. Let's hope so. Maybe it will be worth reading again. It's way to expensive to use as bird cage liner.

RC

[BurtWorm]

110. Very interesting.

I had been thinking of NG as a conservative magazine, too, which is why this sudden politicization surprised me. But I thought it was something I'd just noticed about them, rather than an actual change. A few years ago Scientific American also shook off its conservative, pro-technology image and took more of a stand in the burgeoning faith/reality argument. They've both become much more interesting magazines for becoming more political.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. The sweet irony is...

...the question on the cover might have made quite a lot of Creationist loonies buy the magazine! Then they start to read the article and... :spank:

[UdoKier]

20. The cover question kinda pissed me off...

But the emphatic answer inside (and the knowledge of how much it will piss off creatonist loons) more than made up for it.

[BurtWorm]

21. I think they usually read Godly Geographic.

It has pictures of native women wearing turtle necks and wimples.

[Maestro]

3. Okay who's been passing the

fundie kool-aid around?

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Yes Darwin was wrong.....

....but not about evolutionary theory.

[papau]

13. Darwin was indeed wrong - Evolution is not continuous - and the theory

has been modified to account for that fact.

The one cell to multi-cell change is still not explained - although some folks say it feels right based on clumping of one cell colonies in the ocean.

But then it is a theory - and theories change over time!

Still seems to be the best working theory to move from one cell to human -

although my vanity was hurt when they announce that humans were less complex - in terms of number of genes expressing proteins - than many plants (Mustard runs 27000 genes versus humans being between 20 and 25 thousand)

[durutti]

30. You should read Brian Goodwin and Mae-Wan Ho.

If you haven't already. They're Darwinists but are skeptical of certain aspects of the currently dominant evolutionary theory. The latter is a Green Party activist who's done a lot of stuff around GM food and corporate-funded science. Really interesting stuff.

Oh, and Richard Lewontin too.

[papau]

31. thanks - sounds like some possible Xmas gifts to myself and others!

:-)

[Paxdora]

158. Mae-Wan Ho is one of the great

women geniuses of our time! Just Google her name and read some of her essays...she is a Goddess (metaphorically-speaking) in our midst and I would like more Americans to know about her and her extremely important scientific and political positions.

[durutti]

185. Absolutely.

She should be read by everyone. I half-think that the only reason she isn't more well-known is *because* she's a woman in science. Same with Lynn Margulis.

[DontTreadOnMe]

5. fool me once...

well, that whole Darwin thingy is starting to make some sense to me, but I still believe the Grand Canyon is God's work. I feel much better after I hear God's message through Pat Robertson's voice. And I swear on a stack of bible's that our President is making a safer ... wait, don't confuse me with the facts!

[whistle]

9. An idea and a theory that seems to work when scientifically...

...analyzed from fossils and domestic breeding of plants and animals. I don't know what God's intentions have been since the beginning of time, but it certainly can be fun looking at the possibilities. Before the application of reason and the scientific method, we had only the ego-centric word and interpretations of the church and its doctrine. Before that magic and superstition. Today we have science.

One must be cautious, skeptical and always willing to question the authorities and claimers of truth for they could most assuredly be wrong. It has been my experience that of the three pillars of truth, superstition and magic, religion and science, it is science which allows the greatest latitude to challenge and refute its license for spreading truth, and in fact encourages revision of error in the laws of science.

[gpandas]

10. what pillars of truth?

what do you mean?

[papau]

17. I agree - of the three pillars of "truth", science usually needs but one

or two generations of "old scientists" to die out before a new idea is accepted (1960's plate tectonics was radical - and 40 years later to is the standard model!)

Changing Dogma is very very slow in religion - and even changing non-dogma beliefs can take hundreds of years!

superstition and magic - I am not sure why you included these as the third of the 3 "truth tellers" - and indeed I at the moment do not see how they could change.

[Tsiyu]

24. Perhaps so

But there are many areas yet where the arrogance and/or greed of the scientific community have led to serious setbacks and problems for human beings.

Neither the preacher nor the researcher can reach me unless they can put away their self-importance.

Evolution looks to be a solid explanation, but has some kinks to work out before I'll buy current theories wholeheartedly.

[DrWeird]

25. For instance?

How about some example of each where the arrogance and greed of scientists has caused setbacks and problems for human beings, and what the "kinks" are.

[Tsiyu]

27. Well I really don't have time but for you

Dr. Weird, i shall take a moment.

Example 1) Hygeine. Any old time midwife could have told you even a thousand years ago that you wash your hands between dead people and neonates. Doctors even early in this century did no such thing and spread much disease.

Example 2) Synthetic drugs vs. herbal ones. Former pushed. Latter discouraged. Now we are learning that many of the latter are better remedies and may be necessary to human survival, since Pharm co's no longer want to make snake anti-venom, etc.

Example 3) Current state of mental health care is a SHAME. All facets, due to arrogance and greed.

Example 4) Breastmilk has been disparaged by physicians for so long, many women do not know even how to naturally feed their own babies! While women should have choices, the scientists ( and marketers) pushing the formula have caused much illness in infants.

I could go on and on. But surely you are not one to annoint every scientist with Sainthood. Surely every human recognizes that even scientists are just fallible humans?

As for evolution, I must go run somewhere but will respond when I return.

[DrWeird]

34. Hmmm.

1. I really doubt that historically midwifes understood germ theory any better then the doctors. And it was scientists who figured it all out and why we have the hygeine we do today.

2. Herbal drugs are snake oil. Crystals, chemtrails, stuff like that. It's true that scientists occasionally discover pharmaceutically active compounds within traditional medicine. None of them are "necessary for human survival" and I can't see how any of that has to do with scientists harming human beings, or pharm companies not making antivenom (wtf?).

3. Government/social issue. Science has got nothing to do with it.

4. Hmm, I think this has a lot more to do with the marketing side of the issue. I've never heard of scientists arguing against breast milk.

[jdj]

43. a recent study asked doctors at what point in the history

of medicine did they feel patients would more likely be helped rather than harmed by a visit to the doctor. The general consensus was 1950.

Herbal drugs are not snake oil. That assertion is just crap. I have used echinacea instead of antibiotics for 10 years now, and it has never not worked, it was used by everyone instead of antibiotics until the 1920s when the drugs were invented.

Doctors duped women into thinking their breast milk was inferior for a whole generation, and the formula companies made a whole hell of alot of money off it in the process.

The thing I have most despised about the white coats is that they honestly believed they were the messiahs to the world, instead of humbly practicing their science as contributors to the art of healing that has been practiced in one form or another since the dawn of humanity. The arrogance is unforgivable especially when they kill a planeload of people by medical malpractice every month in this country.

[DrWeird]

44. Snake oil's just another "herbal" medicine.

A quick googling of echinacea reveals its effective against the cold, the flu, chemtrails, etc. Apparently the echinacosides exhibit some mild antibiotic activity, but then again all kinds of plants do. Hopefully I don't have to tell you antibiotics don't work against the flu or colds. But given that you're proud to be taking a mild antibiotic needlessly for the last ten years, maybe you're not too well versed on how antibiotics work.

"I have used echinacea instead of antibiotics for 10 years now, and it has never not worked, it was used by everyone instead of antibiotics until the 1920s when the drugs were invented."

Yes, and before 1920 people were constantly keeling over from bacteriological infections.

[immoderate]

46. A recent study...ha ha

What study? Please link.

Yes. It's true that iatrogenic diseases (caused by doctors) are a problem, but somehow life expectancies keep going up.

Would you eschew treatments for stroke and cancer that were discovered after 1950? Microsurgery? How many people are alive today because heart bypass is now a routine operation?

How about some sympathy for doctors who tell their patients that antibiotics don't work on colds, and the patients insist on them anyway?

--IMM

[Tsiyu]

51. Thanks for those who have my back

Some folks are too enmeshed in science to see it objectively. All of the instances I cited fall under the scientific realm of influence. Is medicine not a science?

Midwives certainly didn't have the molecular structure of cells mapped out, but they by God had common sense to know that cleaner is better. In this case, common sense is far superior to paper theory.

Pharm companies use so many plant components it would make your head spin.

And scientists DID launch a concerted effort to get women to trust their 'formula' over breast milk. It worked.

As to the snake anti-venom, in many parts of the US it is hard to come by. You may be blissfully ignorant of this because you have no kids? snakes nearby? I live in a place dense with rattlers, cottonmouths and water mocs. There are plants that can alleviate some of the symptoms of a poison bite, but pharm companies have been on a major mission to eradicate this knowledge and to poopoo it if that's not successful. But if they aren't making alternatives, what should we do? Nothing?

That's not too scientific if you ask me.

The apologists for science's screwups will always be there, in their ivory towers, justifying even the worst evil if done by a "scientist." They can babble on. Doesn't make the evil any more invisible to me.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. If MY daughter had been brought by a midwife, she'd be DEAD or PARALYZED

Instead, she's a healthy, normal child. She's 3. The umbilical chord was making two turns around their neck. The OB saw the difficulty for her to come out and said, "C-section, now."

Science saved my baby. And maybe my wife too.

[Tsiyu]

88. Well, Duh

I had all six of mine in hospitals. And science saved some of them.

That's what led me to work with "science" running a blood gas lab ( calibrating the machines every hour with fake and/or real blood.) Back in that day, I had to use a slide rule to figure out O2 Sat. Now they have oximeters, and I learned how to use them, too.

I've worked analyzing and "cleaning" up sweeps of telecommunication lines; at one time I could take a quick look at raw sweeps of Tx and Rx lines and tell you whether that line would carry an adequate signal. If the sweeps weren't precise:load, short, dtf, we didn't get paid.

I could bore the hell out of you with all the science I've done for fun and profit. Science is awesome. But some people who study and teach it, or who have agendas they use science to expedite, really piss me off.

Can you say, Thalidamide?

[DrWeird]

96. No, but I can say thalidomide

and I can point out that it was never approved in the US precisely because scientists had not fully tested it. So pregnant women, thinking they didn't need to check with scientists, went overseas to get it and ended up giving their babies birth defects.

[Tsiyu]

107. You win the spelling prize!

My spelling sucks the older I get. Thanks for pointing out my error. I still believe scientists are no more and no less noble than anyone else, and the blind allegience some place in science IS detrimental.

[immoderate]

64. Are you making a joke?

Some folks are too enmeshed in science to see it objectively.

Some examples of things that are more objective than science, please. a short list will do.

I think you are mixing marketing and commerce into it.

--IMM

[Tsiyu]

89. Come on. Are YOU making a joke?

Please don't tell me that there are now new minions of folks walking around zomby-like chanting, "Science has all the answers. Scientists are completely objective. I owe all my eternal gratitude and my YuGiO cards to science....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM"

We really have enough brainwashed minions to deal with at the present time.

How about these facts?

Physical laws are proven, mostly unchangeable.

SCIENTISTS (and some of their METHODS and MOTIVES) can flop around like Granny's undies on the clothesline.

[BurtWorm]

111. What do Granny's undies have to do with the question?

:wtf:

[immoderate]

127. Once again...

...argument hinges on definition of words. I am using the definition of scientist that implies a truth seeker. You are assuming that scientists are corrupt.

We do this all the time around here. What's a theory, a scientist, a Christian, etc? I wouldn't call someone with an ulterior motive a scientist. The word, implies objectivity, peer review, replication, double blinds, etc.

What's your definition of scientist?

--IMM

[BurtWorm]

131. Scientist: "evil nonobjective dominance monger"

:eyes:


A spoiler of fantasies and belief in magic.

[Tsiyu]

139. Oh, Please, no licking of wounds even if scientific

There is nothing wrong with SCIENCE per se. I think scientific study is an important investment. I am dismayed at the way scientists have been handcuffed by the * administration. I admire much of what science has done for humans.

My original response here, however, had to do with the blanket statements that scientists were somehow more "objective" or "self-policing" than other groups of humans. I strongly disagree.

There are scientists ( with degrees and all) who believe in creationism, do not believe in global warming, and who say there is no medical value to marijuana. There are scientists who take the opposite views on these issues.

As I stated earlier, I love science. I was lucky to have great teachers who inspired that love in me. But I do not blindly agree with everything science or scientists have produced.

So quit with the pity party already. Sheesh!

[BurtWorm]

143. You still haven't given an example of a group that is more self-policing

or objective than scientists.

[Tsiyu]

144. I haven't danced a jig either

or jumped through any hoops, or twirled on the head of a pin!

Given the current state of man and womankind, I doubt there is any group worthy of the highest praise except perhaps English Majors. But that doesn't change my statement.


Again: Scientists are no more and no less noble than anyone else. (Unless they are really alien lizards, in which case...)

[BurtWorm]

150. If they're no more and no less, why the hostility?

Hmm? ;)

[Tsiyu]

163. What hostility?

Please explain?

[BurtWorm]

167. Why do you harp on the failures of some scientists

(who have nothing to do with Darwin) in an apparent attempt to bring "science" down a peg in a thread that was meant to appreciate the bravery of National Geographic taking a strong stand in defense of an embattled scientific worldview?

[Tsiyu]

171. Lets revue....shall we?

A statement was made as to the relative integrity of the scientific community.

I have a background in medical science and have seen firsthand how science has been misused. I am also a human living on a planet where science has been used in less than noble ways.

I felt the need to express my opinion that no, scientists can be just as pig-headed, greedy and self-serving as anyone else.

Someone asked for examples.

I gave some.

Other comments were made regarding my examples.

I expanded on those examples.

That's all I know. I have an inherent distrust for those who blindly follow any discipline: be that science, theology, economics blah blah blah. It's not hostility you detect; rather a healthy skepticism combined with a reality-based worldview.

[DrWeird]

176. Yes, let's review.

You said the theory of evolution has a series of flaws, but decided against stating what those flaws were. When asked about how science had harmed human beings you gave a bunch of examples that had nothing to do with science. Frankly, I see nothing about a healthy distrust, just paranoia and ignorance.

[Tsiyu]

180. Well even scientists discuss among themselves

the flaws in the current popular theories. And you are correct, Dr. Weird. I did not add my comments on that topic as other topics diverted my attention. I am sorry I left you hanging there.

But let me ask you something. If I did post my thoughts regarding evolution, wouldn't you just dismiss them as well? Why waste my time? If you must know, I have problems with dating techniques, the way the human fetus has been grossly misrepresented as somehow having vestigal parts that don't really exist ( love those gills! except human fetuses are oxegenated through the umbilical cord. WTF?) and there are other aspects of current theory yet to be proven solidly to me. You can analyze any point I make and say it's wrong and i can do the same to you. So we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I do not feel i hijacked this thread anymore than anyone else with comments to make, but that's your opinion so there you go.

Nothing I say will be taken seriously by you, that's cool. So I'll try not to taint any of the "Scientists are like JESUS!" threads with any of my more diverse opinions on science. Gawd knows, according to some here, all scientists are noble beings and all scientists agree on everything. What a utopia. I don't belong there, happily.

[BurtWorm]

183. I'd like to see one cite of a person here saying all scientists are noble

and all agree on everything.

[DrWeird]

184. No scientist doubts the theory of evolution.

There's some debate about the nature of the mechanisms within natural selection, but to elevate this debate to "kinks in the theory of evolution" is intellectually dishonest at best.

"I have problems with dating techniques"

Such as?

" I have problems with dating techniques, the way the human fetus has been grossly misrepresented as somehow having vestigal parts that don't really exist ( love those gills! except human fetuses are oxegenated through the umbilical cord. WTF?)"

Spoken like a true creationist. An error in an illustration in some 19th century textbook as evidence that evolution did not occur.

Again, intellectually dishonest.

"So I'll try not to taint any of the "Scientists are like JESUS!" threads with any of my more diverse opinions on science."

Yeah, there are a lot of those threads around here.

:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

177. Let's revue all the way back to the beginning.

Read the first post and see if there was a reason to highjack into a science-bashing subthread.

Most people don't need to have it spelled out to them that scientists are fallible.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. Heh. It almost reads like

"Some folks are too enmeshed in objectivity to see it objectively."

Science, of course, is almost a synonym for objectivity.

[pauliedangerously]

100. There are two kinds of doctors:

Researchers and practicioners. While the reasearchers can be considered scientists, the practitioners cannot; they are merely technicians of the human body. Your medical malpractice argument applies to technicians, not scientists.

Echinacea may be fine for minor infections...so is a good diet, a positive attitude, and tangerine Altoids...try it; it works just as well.

[Tsiyu]

108. I could argue this differently

having spent nine years doing critical care, ER, NICU, ICU, CCU patient care. But hey, those observations mean nothing, I realize.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. He's thinking about the Nestlé case

Big corp was pushing artificial milk. The exact benefits of breastfeeding were scientifically (oh my) proven afterwards.

[Selwynn]

187. You can't deny that science is susceptible to politicization and bias...

..why not? Because we're all human, and there is no instance anywhere where anyone does not wrestle with these things.

I am a lover of science. The only time I get disconcerted is in the minority of occasions where some turn science into religion. They do this when they become blindly dogmatic in their assertions and place the misguided quest for certainty above the true spirit of the scientific method.

Science, like anything else in human life is not exempt from the tangles of personal agenda and personal bias. And science, like anything else is not exempt from the tangles of politics. Money exerts influence over science as it does anywhere else, some times with unfortunate results.

But that shouldn't offend anyone - everyone should just accept that as a virtual truism. The fact remains that the foundation and basis for science is pure and it is right. It is based on reason and logic, and a willingness to seek real answers and modify hypothesis in light of new evidence. It seeks data first, then draws conclusions from that data, rather than starting with an already accepted conclusion and then trying to rationalize and twist data to support it. At least, science at its best does that.

But don't for a minute think that somehow the world of "science" is exempt from the dangers and pitfalls of dogmatism, personal bias, institutionalization, political pressure, and yes, even conclusions accepted before data. Why? Because scientists are human. And humans all wrestle with these problem, wherever they are and whatever they're doing. At least however, science ideally follows a system of conjecture and refutation and a method that is designed to minimize the turmoil and skewing caused by human limitations.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

90. It's not the scientists

I would contend that most of your gripes about scientists and science is not due to greedy scientists but to greedy non-scientists who abuse science and exploit people in the interest of making more money. Pharmaceuticals are not interested in science and helping people as much as they are interested in making money. Much of the problems with the state of our mental health care is due to political and social pressures, not science. And you correctly note that marketers push formula, but you also incorrectly implicate scientists.

I'm not out to "annoint every scientist with Sainthood" and scientists are human and certainly fallible, but as a group I believe that scientists tend to be much less greedy and heartless than say politicians and business men. They are the ones you should be blaming for these problems.

[Tsiyu]

94. I've always called it like I see it

Would the MMPI be considered a scientific tool? If so, using it to assess a normal person's personality would be like using a chainsaw to harvest a rose. Yet even with all of its tragic use as a malicious and misleading instrument of evaluation, it remains a crutch to an outdated, bloated psych community. The same can be said for the classifications and treatment protocol "scientists" using "research" have mapped out for us lesser beings.

Scientists are no more and no less noble than any damned body else.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

95. While I am not familiar with MMPI

Do you really think that mentally ill people were better off 500 years ago? I never argued that the state of our mental illness treatment is great, but it is a world better than what it used to be. The slow progress is largely because of the negative social stigma associated with the topic.

Scientists tend to be more educated than average. People with higher education tend to be Democrats. Democrats are DEFINITELY more noble than Republicans. So yes, I am concluding that as a whole Scientists are more noble that nearly half of our population.

[Pithlet]

99. It was scientists

who discovered the benefits of breast milk, which led to many doctors in white coats encouraging more breastfeeding, which is on the rise now.

Synthetic drugs have saved many a life. They are pushed because they work. Herbs are discouraged in part because that industry has lobbied so heavily to be exempted from the rules the FDA puts forth for pharmaceuticals, and therefore aren't as reliable in their dosage, among other problems. They aren't tested nearly as rigorously, if at all. Any doctor who would recommend herbal remedies that haven't been scientifically proven, and aren't regulated safely, isn't doing his/her job.

I love how the anti-science/anti medicine crowd loves to crow about how everyone else is just so duped and blindly follows medicine and science based on faith. But, there are no controlled studies and no regulation when it comes to the herbal stuff. You are taking it on faith that the bottle of herbal supplements you bought is what it says it is, will do what it says it will do, and that the dosage is what it says it is on the bottle. And you only have the word of the person that made it. Now who is being duped, and blindly following?

[pauliedangerously]

101. Awesome rebuttal!!

I really enjoy your posts, Pithlet!!

[BurtWorm]

112. Amen, Pithlet!

:toast:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

130. Great post. Shame about the herbals.

Plant life is the best manufacturer of weird molecules there is. If they were as regulated as synthetic drugs we could discover many useful substances. As it is, people are in the hands of the snake oil salesmen.

[Tsiyu]

140. It's the reduction of common sense here

which troubles me. How have humans survived thousands of years without the advanced science we have now?

Gee, lemme see. Nature provided women with milk-producing glands, and milk perfectly designed to meet the nutritional needs of infants. It was arrogant to suggest that manufactured formula would ever replace breastmilk as the best first food for infants. Please. The reduction of common sense to inconsequential? Scientists only studied the components when they conceded that corn syrup and cow's milk weren't enough to cut it. And they STILL don't know all of the components there.

The pharm companies are no doubt chuckling at the ignorance expressed here concerning plant/medical connections. There are thousands of years worth of records on all sorts of herbs ( they didn't always have CVS or Eckerd's.) While the Doctrine of Signatures was a dicey theory at best, it did lead to the use and study of plenty of herbs. And there are many studies proving the efficacy of some of those herbs. In fact, the drug companies are now marketing and selling herbs faster than the original herbal sales outlets.

I can't make you be an objective consumer or get you to agree that science and scientist CAN BE WRONG and HAVE BEEN WRONG many times. So I will stop trying. But please don't label me a science basher. It's not productive or truthful in the least.

[BurtWorm]

151. You're really conflating science and capitalism.

It was capitalism that drove greedy bastards to try to create a market for imitation mother's milk.

[Tsiyu]

164. And they couldn't have done it without scientists

So if scientists allow themselves to be used as whores, does that let them off the hook?

[BurtWorm]

165. And herbalists and alt med peddlers can't be whores?

Please.

[Tsiyu]

169. I thought we were discussing scientists

What happened? of course there are unscrupulous herb peddlers. But not all are. How does your statement disprove anything I've said, Hon?

[DrWeird]

173. Yes, they are unscrupulous.

If they claim the herbs cure things that they don't they're unscruplous. Just like all astrologers are unscrupulous. Whether they believe in them or not doesn't change that fact.

[BurtWorm]

178. Who is more likely to be unscrupulous? The average scientist

or the average herb peddler?

[indigobusiness]

155. And yet the placebo effect is the Elvis of medicine:

Widely loved and endlessly emulated, but matchless and uncomfortably mysterious.

[starroute]

120. I think you're getting your paradigm fron "The Golden Bough"

And that was over a hundred years ago.

I have a strong interest in archaeology and anthropology, and the conclusion I've taken away from my reading is that truth *always* begins with science.

Science, in turn, begins with the hackers. Metallurgy began with hackers throwing rocks in the fire to see what cool colors they would turn. Agriculture began with hackers bringing twenty-seven different interesting plants back from the jungle to see if they could get any of them to grow out behind the hut.

From hackers and engineers, who do science just for the sheer joy of it, you get to theorists, who want to explain things. Some of the theories are useful and point to fruitful areas for further hacking, but some of them are just garbage.

In time, most of the garbage gets worked out of the system -- but occasional remnants of it hang on as superstitition.

Religion, as far as I'm concerned, has never been anything more than an attempt to take certain particularly cherished superstititons and dress them up in the guise of science. But there's far more genuine awe and wonder in honest hacking than in any religion I ever heard of.

[indigobusiness]

153. Perhaps you should read The Tao of Physics

and 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' to see the fundamental parallels.
The current work of William Tiller also helps.

Keep in mind, religion has been around far longer than science.

As for genuine awe and wonder being lacking in religion, have you had a look at the Hindu Vedas or Buddhist sutras? Religion is an effort to reconnect to the source. Science is about defining it.

What religion is about is as self-evident as what science is about. The conduct of each are questionable.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Bronze this article and post it in our National Parks.

[seasat]

16. I like the article's discussion about scientific theories.

Whenever someone says to me that the green house gas theory for global warming is just a theory so we can't base any policy on it, I reply that the explanation for gravity is a theory, would they like to step off a 40 story building to test it? I give the same response regarding evolution.

[MsTryska]

23. heh. Adam and Eve

were the apes. living happily, with no thoughts or worries. Eve made the leap, and voila. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[Ahriman]

36. Creationism is idiocy

[prayin4rain]

37. Evolutionary theory still leaves much to be desired.

And especially in it's applications (survival of the fittest and such) I agree it is the best we have for now, but I think we should be careful what we call fact.

[undergroundpanther]

40. Darwin was observant

He saw what nature does yes.But it does not make it OK.
Evolution is brutal and it is not respectful..
Now just because it appears natural that the strong eat the weak it does not mean we as a species are BOUND to behave like nature does when in fact we don't have to.Maybe we have evolved past evolution and some of us are aware of that while others are not?We too evolved,we got big brains dexterous hands and are capable of alot,and a lot of self delusion too..we have emotions and sensitivities and awareness that can put us painfully in touch with our human condition..

We can choose to NOT be bound by evolution if we choose to live in a way that defies it,by changing our hearts becoming sensitive and controlling our bodies and knowing ourselves and respecting each other,including respecting kids by not having them if you choose not to..We as a species can actually break free of the sickness of evolution if we become aware of evolutions tendencies pushing us twords blind stupidity,greed,mindless or egotistical reproduction,abuse, domination competition and death..instead of better things like love,equality,cooperation ,responsibility,conservation of resources,emotional maturity,sharing wealth and anti-authoritarian freedom.
Humans aren't like wolves or bears we are not equipped with claws and fangs.We survive by creating, sharing and cooperation with this world and each other..This I think is the only reason we survived thus far without fur or fangs..We are similar to other creatures and they like us,but we are also different too. Cats can bond with their caretakers when we share food,feral cats are not like pet cats until they are secure.What if we reinforced security and sharing in the world instead of domination and competition? most creatures on some level can recognize kindness is better than hostility.

[OxQQme]

45. Clay Tablets tell a story of Creation

that affirms that human stock was dropped off here milleniums ago during a collision with a populated moon of a planet that is known as Niburu.
The planet and it's inhabitants orbit two suns (one is Sol) in a 3600 year cycle. The evolution of that seed stock became neanderthal/cro-magnon beings that adapted to this planet in a crude sort of way.
When the Niburians had a need for gold to save their planets life threatening ozone hole they found it here on this planet and made attempts at mining it but needed more manpower.
Knowledge of DNA manipulation was used to bring the human stock (mud) into a state of being that was beyond hunter/gatherers to help in the mining of gold.
Slaves, so to speak.
But, they ended up admiring the results of 'us' and began bringing us into a state of knowledge that included: written language, written and performed music, metalurgy, cultivation/irrigation, the wheel, astronomy, kingship (needed for cities to become consolitated and not chaotic).
The clay tablets that are available to us in this generation were written approx. 6000 years ago, several thousand before Moses meeting Yahweh on that mountain.
Prior to 'THE ONE GOD' there were several, and their guiding person was female. She's had many names depending on which world culture was observing her. Ishtar and Innana are the most common.
Astronomy/astrology guides us into knowledge of 'Ages'.
This past age was Marduk's ( who we have heard of in the Bible as GOD). Marduk has attempted to 'scrub' our memories of a Matriarchal world. Many millions of women killed during the centuries if they didn't believe the 'spin' of Mose's 'message' to his tribes as recorded biblically.
Spin this: Eve is the one who caused us all our misery.


Male domination has gotten us into this sorry state. Greed. Me Me Mine. Weapons. War for dominance over others.
The Repubs are of that ilk.

Dems are the feminine. Nurturing, compassionate. The loving Mother.

The age of Aquarius is upon us. Feminine.

Hillary rawks
Oprah rawks
Ellen too

IMHO

[immoderate]

47. this is scientology stuff, right?

I, for one get a yuk out of it.

--IMM

[WoodrowFan]

67. close

it's a different little cult. Still as nutty as squirel poop tho!

http://www.nibiruancouncil.com/index.html

[immoderate]

74. Hey! I may be skeptical but

I'm always ready for intergalactic adventure!

--IMM

[prayin4rain]

148. Welcome to DU!

[indigobusiness]

154. The Sumerian record is filled with clues to our true past.

But, gender bigotry stinks in all forms.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. Gravity too. Perhaps more

It has lots of unresolved incongruities with subatomic (aka quantum) physics. That's no reason to argue that angels push the planets around.

[WoodrowFan]

60. well if angels DON'T push the erth around

how do you explain the giant handprints in the Pacific ocean.. there's a website someone with photos I'm sure. :silly:

[prayin4rain]

160. I just read your reply... I think you were replying to me..

I just said we should be careful what we call fact. Not sure how your analogy applies. I am not suggesting we dump evolution theory entirely and instead adopt some wild and ridiculous theory in it's place. Just a little confused by what your reply could have meant.

[Robbie67]

59. Well, there's evolution as a theory. and then there's "Creation"

which do you think has more credence?

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robbie67]

104. what are you talking about?

Would I send a CIA operative.... What does that have to do with anything?

[prayin4rain]

162. I already said I think evolutionary theory is the best we have so far...

All I said is we should be careful what we call fact. This is the second reply that seemed to have just read my subject line and not my entire response.

[Nikia]

141. Like how all the modern animal phyla evolved at the same time

I was shocked when I found that out. I still don't know we can explain that.
Natural selection has been historically documented and even observed in the laboratory, but it doesn't explain everything. What we have currently does require a bit of faith.

[sweetheart]

61. It does not explain much about the GOP

I heard that evolution has basically stopped in the human species as
nothing is selecting out stupid genes.... even worse, it seems that
stupid genes are being SELECTED! The rise of the GOP suggests
perhaps that the entire human species has mutated away from survival.

[DrBB]

69. Tiny quibble re year and earth orbit

The calendrical year long predates the heliocentric model of the solar system.

[OxQQme]

83. Evidence or Hooey ?

I don't think of myself as some kinda whacko in having read all of Mr.Sitchin's books (two or three of them more than once).
I sit firmly in place concerning my beliefs that he has uncovered one of the most monumental 'spins' about our true history.
Consider the past 200 odd years in the history of us spilling onto this continent and the stories we've been led to believe are truth.


http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm

They know that the biblical verses dealing with the fashioning of The Adam are condensed renderings of much much more detailed Sumerian and Akkadian texts, found inscribed on clay tablets, in which the role of the Elohim in Genesis is performed by the Anunnaki – “Those Who From Heaven to Earth Came.”

As detailed in my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru – a member of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere. Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge to create the needed Primitive Workers. When the other leaders of the Anunnaki asked: How can you create a new being? He answered:

"The being that we need already exists;
all that we have to do is put our mark on it.”

The time was some 300,000 years ago.

What he had in mind was to upgrade genetically the existing hominids, who were already on Earth through Evolution, by adding some of the genes of the more advanced Anunnaki. That the Anunnaki, who could already travel in space 450,000 years ago, possessed the genomic science (whose threshold we have now reached) is clear not only from the actual texts but also from numerous depictions in which the double-helix of the DNA is rendered as Entwined Serpents (a symbol still used for medicine and healing) -- see illustration ‘A’ below.

more...

[WoodrowFan]

105. off the meds

off the meds again, huh.

[neebob]

85. Well, it sure is funny

how there are all these groups of creatures with the same basic characteristics - for example, a skeleton, covered by muscles and skin and hair - with the same basic organs and bodily functions and behaviors. All the mammals and who knows - maybe even bugs and plants - have consciousness and personalities.

It just seems to me that if someone had created all of these creatures, he or she would have made fewer kinds that are a lot more different from one another. And why would a being with the kind of intelligence it would take to create all of this weird, interrelatedly functioning stuff on purpose waste his or her time with creatures as violent and self-destructive as humans?

It's a total accident.

[NinetySix]

92. The difference is...

...that Creationists all have some dogmatic axe to grind. Creation is the assumption in their argument which is to be proved, thus it's true, QED! Further, they assume evolution means a steady progression from the lowest form of life in its primordial stage to what is viewed as the highest form, the rational human being. In truth, Darwin never claimed any sort of teleology inherent in evolution; to the contrary, the only principle was survival, and in cases where its survival would depend upon it, devolution would be the natural course of a species.

[despairing optimist]

93. Just a look through the Oval Office windows should answer this question

Some of us are more evolved than others. Haven't they been cleaning those windows lately?

[secular_warrior]

106. I learned long ago not to engage in this debate

People are going to believe what they want to believe, especially when it comes to religous beliefs(which includes agnosticism and atheism), no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

The only thing we can ask of people is secularism, i.e. the right to religious freedom in the private sphere. Everyone's religous beliefs are to be respected while also respecting the wall between church and state.

[BurtWorm]

113. Disengagement from the debate could get creationism into biology classes.

Fundamentalists have stopped respecting the wall.

[secular_warrior]

116. The battle should be fought on secularism vs. fundamentalism,

instead of religon vs anti-religon.

In that way, we can bring many religous voters to our side who believe in the separation of church and state. Remember, most Americans are members of a religion and believe in God. The fundies win when our position sounds too atheistic and extreme. Secularism should always be the goal because it takes care of everything without having to fight every little fire that pops up. A secular approach removes religous propaganda like creationism from the public schools while respecting everyone's religion and cultural sensibilities.

[BurtWorm]

117. Which side are you talking about? Who's "we?"

Secularism vs. fundamentalism is one battle but not the only one. And the least worthwhile battle is the popularity contest, in my opinion. Science loses that one handily to magic.

[secular_warrior]

119. By "we" I'm referring to the Democratic Party and the Left in general.

Nobody has the right to legislate or force the religous beliefs (which includes atheism) upon the government. I oppose an atheistic state (which is a kind of theocracy) as much as I do a Christian one. America is a secular nation that respects religous freedom while also respecting the wall between church and state. I will never support any position other than that, as far as government goes.

People can try to convert as many people as they want to whatever belief system they want (including atheism) in the private sphere, but they must keep it out of the government.

[BurtWorm]

122. Who is trying to legislate an atheistic state into existence?

Are you arguing that defending evolution and Darwin in the schools is tantamount to establishing atheism?

[secular_warrior]

138. Of course not.

But it should be taught as part of science agenda, and not as some alternative for religion. There are many on the left --especially in academia-- who are openly hostile to religion.

People have a right to believe whatever they want - you don't seem to accept that. Reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists who have this great need to use every means possible - including the government- to convert everyone to their cause.

ps. I'm an atheist.

[BurtWorm]

142. Who teaches evolution as an alternative to religion?

People have a right to believe whatever they want - you don't seem to accept that.


Do people have a right not to accept that people have a right to believe what they want? ;)

[secular_warrior]

145. No. Actually you don't have the right not to accept my right.

Your rights end where mine begin, and one citizen cannot deny another of their Constitutional or unalienable rights, "among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

You're basically a religious fundamentalist - just not a Christian one.

I don't think you understand the concept of a secular democracy.

[BurtWorm]

152. I'm not sure you understand the concept of being a secular "warrior."

Maybe you should change your handle to secular nice guy. ;)

Seriously, you've gone rather far afield from the point of the original post, making assumptions about my positions that don't seem to be based on anything I've actually written. I have not argued that people don't have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. True, I have also not argued that atheists don't have the right to challenge the assumptions of other people's beliefs. But I believe in parity of freedom. If fundamentalists are free to plot a Dominionist takeover of the federal government, then I am free to warn other Americans about the dangers of fundamentalism. If fundamentalists are free to try to foist "creationism" onto high school biology curricula, then I am free to attack creationism's claim to be a science. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. It doesn't respect anyone's beliefs over anyone else's. Even we holders of minority positions have rights.

[secular_warrior]

156. I just think your picking the wrong fight

Warning or convincing people of this or that is your right, but I just don't see how it is easier or more effective.

IMO, it's much smarter to advocate for an air-tight wall between church and state. That takes care of everything, as far as I'm concerned. People can then believe whatever they want in the private sphere, and I can feel secure knowing that their religous beliefs aren't working their way into the government or public schools.

[BurtWorm]

157. As I say, the problem is they don't respect the wall.

Arguing for airtight separation and $2.00 will get you a ride on the subway, but it won't keep creeping fundamentalism out of the schools and the government.

[Paxdora]

161. " it won't keep creeping fundamentalism...

out of the schools and the government"

I sure would like to know WHAT THE HELL WILL?

[immoderate]

128. If atheism is a religious belief...

then bald is a hair color.

My father's business partner would not come to our house because we had a black cat. He considered that bad luck. How should I show respect for that belief?

--IMM

[Selwynn]

188. By doing it.

[nolabels]

123. We are living in age where we have proof

See monkeys have progressed and can even fly now

http://www.monkeytime.org/archive/June2003.html

[JudyM]

134. Reality. We'll get it with Kerry at helm, not Bush. HELPKERRYWIN.com

Weneed to get Bush and his influence the heck out of DC. Send this site to your friends - quick and easy grassroot stuff anyone can do to help Kerry win, even right from home - so we can all help without taking the time to get involved in the whole campaign thing. The more folks who get the link, the more it'll help Kerry-Edwards restore sanity - reality - to our country.

www.helpkerrywin.com

[undergroundpanther]

135. Well what do Y'all make of THIS??

Francis Galton (1822-1911) was an English scientist who studied heredity and intelligence. He was the person who coined the word eugenics, using Greek words to express what was originally a Greek concept.

He was a cousin of Charles Darwin. Erasmus Darwin was Francis Galton's maternal grandfather and also Charles Darwin's paternal grandfather. Erasmus Darwin developed a theory of evolution that Charles Darwin later expanded and refined.

Galton defined his new word this way: "Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally." But he wanted more than a little study. In 1905, he wrote about the three stages of eugenics ã first an academic matter, then a practical policy, and finally "it must be introduced into the national consciousness as a new religion."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

136. Guilt by family relation. Fine. (nt)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

137. Hey, I found where your post comes from!

http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap02.html

Please do browse the main site -- http://www.eugenics-watch.com -- and Y'all will learn that lots and lots of liberal things -- feminism, separation of church and state, pro-choice etc, even contraception -- are all part of an evil Nazi eugenics conspiracy!!!

:tinfoilhat:

[undergroundpanther]

146. And I don't agree with everything on that site

BUT I have seen it elsewhere like War on the weak
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
http://www.mugu.com/galton/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm
http://www.mugu.com/galton/index.html
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay6text.html

I am not a supporter of some of the crap people attach to anti-evolution arguments. Don't assume I am.
I didn't say BELIEVE I ASKED What did you make of that quote by Galton.
I am not a believer in creationism or in evolution.
They are both religionss in my opnion. Just because the site I linked to has allot of bullshit mixed in does not invalidate who Galton was and whom he was related to.And it does not erase where people have taken the idea od "surivial of the fittist".
And I have seen eugnics in action in the 80's.I had a roomate she was black we were un "treatment .I was white.I was overcoming a bad past she had schizoprenia she was very high functioning.
She was forecd and cocerced to take norplant threatened with homessness I felt the tube under her skin and she told me she didn't agree to have it put in.

I wanted a tubal ligation because I knew I did not ever want kids.I had insurance to pay for it.I was 27.
But get this my shrinks and the staff were doing everything in thier power to hinder me. Also no whites were forced on norplant there not even low functioning whites.But blacks in the program got cocerced to take it.I asked around.I found out.I tried to tell someone,I contacted my senator.I got assaulted by staff.Than all of a sudden I got alternative housing suddly come through when the waiting list takes years.

Why would they do that? Why would they force a black woman to take norplant,and not whites? Why would they assult me for asking questions and being concerned about civil rights violations?

[LaReservaPr]

186. They found a 'Hobbit'

Scientists Find Prehistoric Dwarf Skeleton
Yahoo News

1 hour, 21 minutes ago Science - AP


By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, AP Science Writer

In a breathtaking discovery, scientists working on a remote Indonesian island say they have uncovered the bones of a human dwarf species marooned for eons while modern man rapidly colonized the rest of the planet.


One tiny specimen, an adult female measuring about 3 feet tall, is described as "the most extreme" figure to be included in the extended human family. Certainly, she is the shortest.


This hobbit-sized creature appears to have lived as recently as 18,000 years ago on the island of Flores, a kind of tropical Lost World populated by giant lizards and miniature elephants.


She is the best example of a trove of fragmented bones that account for as many as seven of these primitive individuals. Scientists have named the new species Homo floresiensis, or Flores Man. The specimens' ages range from 95,000 to 12,000 years old.


The discovery has astonished anthropologists unlike any in recent memory. Flores Man is a totally new creature that was fundamentally different from modern humans. Yet it lived until the threshold of recorded human history, probably crossing paths with the ancestors of today's islanders.


"This finding really does rewrite our knowledge of human evolution," said Chris Stringer, who directs human origins studies at the Natural History Museum in London. "And to have them present less than 20,000 years ago is frankly astonishing."


Flores Man was hardly formidable. His grapefruit-sized brain was about a quarter the size of the brain of our species, Homo sapiens. It is closer in size to the brains of transitional prehuman species in Africa more than 3 million years ago.


Yet evidence suggests Flores Man made stone tools, lit fires and organized group hunts for meat.


Just how this primitive, remnant species managed to hang on is unclear. Geologic evidence suggests a massive volcanic eruption sealed its fate some 12,000 years ago, along with other unusual species on the island.


Still, researchers say the perseverance of Flores Man smashes the conventional wisdom that modern humans began to systematically crowd out other upright-walking species 160,000 years ago and have dominated the planet alone for tens of thousands of years.


And it demonstrates that Africa, the acknowledged cradle of humanity, does not hold all the answers to persistent questions of how — and where — we came to be.


"It is arguably the most significant discovery concerning our own genus in my lifetime," said anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who reviewed the research independently.


Discoveries simply "don't get any better than that," proclaimed Robert Foley and Marta Mirazon Lahr of Cambridge University in a written analysis.


To others, the specimen's baffling combination of slight dimensions and coarse features bears almost no meaningful resemblance either to modern humans or to our large, archaic cousins.


They suggest that Flores Man doesn't belong in the genus Homo at all, even if it was a recent contemporary. But they are unsure how to classify the species.


"I don't think anybody can pigeonhole this into the very simple-minded theories of what is human," anthropologist Jeffery Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh. "There is no biological reason to call it Homo. We have to rethink what it is."


Details of the discovery appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.





Researchers from Australia and Indonesia found the partial skeleton 13 months ago in a shallow limestone cave known as Liang Bua. The cave, which extends into a hillside for about 130 feet, has been the subject of scientific analysis since 1964.

The female skeleton and fragments from the six other individuals are being stored in a laboratory in Jakarta, Indonesia. The cave, which now is surrounded by coffee farms, is fenced off and patrolled by guards.

Near the skeleton were stone tools and animal remains, including teeth from a young stegodon, or prehistoric dwarf elephant, as well as fish, birds and rodents. Some of the bones were charred, suggesting they were cooked.

Excavations are continuing. In 1998, stone tools and other evidence found on Flores suggested the presence 900,000 years ago of another early human, Homo erectus. The tools were found a century after the celebrated discovery in the 1890s of big-boned H. erectus fossils in eastern Java.

Now, researchers suggest H. erectus spread to remote Flores and throughout the region, perhaps on bamboo rafts. Caves on surrounding islands are the target of future studies, they said.

Researchers suspect that Flores Man probably is an H. erectus descendant that was squeezed by evolutionary pressures.

Nature is full of mammals — deer, squirrels and pigs, for example — living in marginal, isolated environments that gradually dwarf when food isn't plentiful and predators aren't threatening.

On Flores, the Komodo dragon and other large meat-eating lizards prowled. But Flores Man didn't have to worry about violent human neighbors.

This is the first time that the evolution of dwarfism has been recorded in a human relative, said the study's lead author, Peter Brown of the University of New England in Australia.

Scientists are still struggling to identify its jumbled features.

Many say its face and skull features show sufficient traits to be included in the Homo family that includes modern humans. It would be the eighth species in the Homo category.

George Washington's Wood, for example, finds it "convincing."

Others aren't sure.

For example, they say the skull is wide like H. erectus. But the sides are rounder and the crown traces an arc from ear to ear. The skull of H. erectus has steeper sides and a pointed crown, they said.

The lower jaw contains large, blunt teeth and roots like Australopithecus, a prehuman ancestor in Africa more than 3 million years ago. The front teeth are smaller than modern human teeth.

The eye sockets are big and round, but they don't carry a prominent browline.

The shinbone in the leg shares similarities with apes.

"I've spent a sleepless night trying to figure out what to do with this thing," said Schwartz. "It makes me think of nothing else in this world."

___

Associated Press writers Emma Ross in London and Chris Brummit in Jakarta contributed to this report.

[BurtWorm]

190. I wonder what creationists make of that.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :toast:

[greyfox]

195. They make of it

that it is like the "spaceships" and "crop circles"... total BUNK. LOL

[BurtWorm]

197. That's hilarious! Or frightening?

And no doubt true.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :toast:

[greyfox]

200. Thanks

for the welcome.