Navigation
Recent Comments
- Jack Shea on June 22, 2004 11:57 AM
- Bob Maurus on June 22, 2004 09:11 AM
- Russell on June 22, 2004 08:22 AM
- Bob Maurus on June 22, 2004 07:25 AM
- Ian Menzies on June 21, 2004 08:55 PM
- steve on June 21, 2004 08:54 PM
- Brion Gysin on June 21, 2004 08:26 PM
- Russell on June 21, 2004 06:55 PM
- Jack Shea on June 21, 2004 06:03 PM
- steve on June 21, 2004 04:37 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 27, 2004 03:23 AM
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/232
Comment #2982
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 27, 2004 09:32 AM (e) (s)
For a good time, call PZ.
Comment #2991
Posted by Jim Anderson on May 27, 2004 10:51 AM (e) (s)
Then I saw this post… now I’m a belieeever…
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/miracles.htm…
Really, I can’t think of a better symbol for ID than The Monkees. On many albums, they didn’t play their own instruments. They were a Beatles derivative, but ended up commercially successful.
“It would be foolish to pretend, however, that they were a band of serious significance, despite the occasional genuinely serious artistic aspirations of the members.”
Read more at http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/monkees/bio.jhtml…
Comment #3188
Posted by Matt Inlay on May 29, 2004 02:00 PM (e) (s)
What’s the difference between hope and wishful thinking?
Comment #3202
Posted by Jack Shea on May 30, 2004 04:21 PM (e) (s)
Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human, though he or she will probably never have heard of ID. So it will be a hard slog to keep to the old curriculum. I don’t think it’s possible because the old curriculum is so full of holes and the “protesteth too much” approach is maybe an inevitable but still poor defense. We’re not talking about a revision of science on the order of a flat earth here, we’re talking about a valid debate. And kicking and screaming won’t make it go away.
Science claimed to have killed God but God wasn’t listening. Nor was most of the human race. Belief in God fulfills a deep human need. It’s so universal that it could almost be considered an instinct. Science is often portrayed as the opposite of myth but it’s really just another form of myth. Science’s claim to be the bastion of hard fact, unshifting truth, is an illusion. Very few scientific principles have proven immune to revision as more detail is uncovered about the world we live in. Even the limiting velocity of light has gone the way of all flesh. We garland Nature with facts but she still reigns supreme and mysterious. We took pride in the “human invention” of masers and lasers and now find that stars pump light in exactly the same way. We derided the “music of the spheres”, planetary harmonies, as medieval superstition and now we find out the Crab Nebula is singing away, a basso profundo in B flat and all the other stars, including our sun, join in the chorus. Science is ultimately just another belief system, and like every other belief system it does not have an infinite shelf-life. The glory days when people were willing to believe that science would cure all the world’s ills are gone. We have seen science create as much misery and devastation as it has created health and ease. It’s kind of amusing to see hard evolutionists suffering the same onslaughts on their precious beliefs as all the other great world religions have suffered. Science is doomed, like every other human endeavour, to the limits of being human. We’re not as intelligent as we think we are. We’re just scratching in the dust for clues.
Comment #3204
Posted by Russell on May 30, 2004 05:45 PM (e) (s)
Jack Shea wrote… a comment, I guess. But what did it have to do with the post it was supposed to be commenting on?
Comment #3207
Posted by Virge on May 30, 2004 06:08 PM (e) (s)
We derided the “music of the spheres”, planetary harmonies, as medieval superstition and now we find out the Crab Nebula is singing away, a basso profundo in B flat and all the other stars, including our sun, join in the chorus.
Jack,
Does an Elizabethan concept of cosmological harmony represent the limit of what you want people to learn about the universe?
Science is doomed, like every other human endeavour, to the limits of being human.
I guess you’ve found your limit. The rest of us would like to try to learn more. The process of science as a means of discovery is not showing any signs of slowing down nor losing its ability to fascinate and enlighten.
The Panda’s Thumb is committed to defending science and science education against the claims of the anti-evolution movement. You seem to be supporting an anti-science (or possibly anti-education) movement. I don’t think you’ll find overt supporters for that view even in the ID movement.
Comment #3211
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 30, 2004 08:23 PM (e) (s)
Jack Shea: Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human
I agree, for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.
Comment #3215
Posted by Jim Anderson on May 30, 2004 10:23 PM (e) (s)
Science is ultimately just another belief system, and like every other belief system it does not have an infinite shelf-life.
There are so many things wrong with the previous post, it’s hard to know where to begin—or if beginning is worth the “slog.”
First up, though, hard pronouncements like the above cut both ways. Replace “science” with “every other belief system,” say, ID or Christianity, and what do we have? Nothing lasts. Jack Shea, nihilist in disguise?
And I thought the po-mo critique of science had gone out of style after the Sokal Hoax.
Comment #3216
Posted by Jim Harrison on May 30, 2004 11:08 PM (e) (s)
If the current scientific consensus were just another philosophy like Democritean atomism or Cartesian dualism, nobody would spend so much money and effort opposing it. But evolution is not just somebody’s opinion.
Modern skepticism differs drastically from ancient skepticism. People used to dispair that we could acquire reliable knowledge. Now they’re unhappy because we can. Hence the incredible displays of special pleading one regularly hears from Creationists and ID folks.
Comment #3217
Posted by Jack Shea on May 31, 2004 01:14 AM (e) (s)
Wesley:
Excuse me? “Off topic?” How so? Your topic is a current conflict between science and religion. My thoughts were perfectly in line with such a discussion. Your reaction sums up the problem you hard-Evs are going to have, are having with supporters of ID. You don’t make people go away by trying to throttle them. That attitude should be the antithesis of the scientific method. If you don’t let falsity die by its own hand it will snap back and bite you in the butt every time. But thank you for the honour of Bathroom Wall placement. I must have really struck a nerve. Russell didn’t even dare quote its innocuous, almost self-evident generalizations fer C—-sakes. You certainly prove my attestations. This type of behaviour is a tea-cup rendering of the attitude of the Catholic Church to a heliocentric solar system. Again showing the rigidity of the scientific belief system. Check your mental mirror, Wes, before you pin this up on your Bathroom Wall, if you dare.
Sorry, Pim. We’ll have to continue this discussion in the toilet. Wes gave me a red card for kicking the ball with my left foot.
Yerz in incredulity,
Jack
Comment #3218
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 31, 2004 01:40 AM (e) (s)
Jack Shea:
The “current topic” was Paul Nesselroade’s “Wedge Update” and how trying to make a distinction between “wedge strategy” and “wedge document” simply did not fit the facts. This is quite a bit more specific than “a current conflict between science and religion”.
I’m not throttling anybody. I’m simply keeping the comments associated with the entry post topical, and your more general remarks have been preserved in a more general area.
Raving (e.g., “I must have really struck a nerve.”) and wish-fulfillment fantasies (e.g., “You certainly prove my attestations.”) also aren’t topical to the original entry post, and thus Jack’s second comments joins his original off-topic comment. It is ironic, though, that Jack puts on such histrionics about not quoting his “self-evident conclusions” , given how thoroughly Jack avoided trying to make even a minimal defense of Paul Nesselroade’s “Wedge Update”. I guess Jack wasn’t up to quoting my self-evident conclusion that there is no distinction between “wedge strategy” and “wedge document”. Consistency is something that ID advocates are often found to lack.
Comment #3219
Posted by Jack Shea on May 31, 2004 01:52 AM (e) (s)
Jims Everywhere:
First up, though, hard pronouncements like the above cut both ways. Replace “science” with “every other belief system,” say, ID or Christianity, and what do we have? Nothing lasts. Jack Shea, nihilist in disguise?
Was I indicating that science was unique? No, I was challenging science’s view of its own uniqueness. Is science unique? Yes, it is a belief system which bases its tenets on proven fact. Do the “proven facts” of science frequently suffer revision in light of new evidence? Every day m’dear. Surely a “proven fact” is an immutable truth? Not in a world where we are making better scientific instruments all the time. Truth, as Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Thank you, Professors Heisenberg, Bohr, etc. for experimentally verifying this philosophical truth which has been understood for 2500 years by anyone familiar with Buddha’s Sutras.
Nihilism? Hardly. Second law of thermodynamics. Everything runs down. I am in love with Nature and everything in it. My only enemies are evil technologists and corporations threatening to destroy us all. Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist I am assuredly NOT saying all technologists and corporations are evil nor do I absolve myself from part of the blame. I own an electric guitar, a video camera and a computer. Several computers etc. But I do not own any atomic weapons and am not trying to clone animals.
Hence the incredible displays of special pleading one regularly hears from Creationists and ID folks.
And, I might add, scientists. I speak from the hard lesson of the Bathroom Wall!
Some primer questions:
1. What is the speed of light?
2. Is the Crab Nebula generating sound?
3. Are there stars emitting maser light?
Bonus question:
Has science created misery and devastation alongside its benefits to humanity? Discuss Bhopal, Chernobyl, global warming, Cher’s facelift, hard AI and the history of 20th Century warfare in your answer.
Comment #3221
Posted by Jack Shea on May 31, 2004 02:18 AM (e) (s)
Wesley:
The “current topic” was Paul Nesselroade’s “Wedge Update” and how trying to make a distinction between “wedge strategy” and “wedge document” simply did not fit the facts. This is quite a bit more specific than “a current conflict between science and religion”.
Bullshit. Here’s a snip from your intro:
I note that they did not suggest bringing along a copy of Futuyma’s “Evolutionary Biology”, though it is likely that the attendees (and, for that matter, the presenters) will be far less familiar with its contents than they are with those of the Bible.
In a single sentence you expose the base of the argument: science vs. religion. But then, in a technique sadly characteristic of hard-Evos, you post-facto define the terms of legitimate argument as “specificity”. If you choose to open a can of worms, Wesley, you are obliged to go fishing.
given how thoroughly Jack avoided trying to make even a minimal defense of Paul Nesselroade’s “Wedge Update”.
I don’t give a flying F about Nesselroad’s Wedgie Update. Nor should you. The broad parameters of this argument are much more interesting and, dare I say it, enlightening. We should be talking about the absolute nature of truth, not strategies for forcibly imposing one belief system on another. Enslavement by any name is still enslavement.
I’ve got plenty of toilet paper but the mirror needs cleaning.
Comment #3222
Posted by Jack Shea on May 31, 2004 02:33 AM (e) (s)
Virge:
Meet me in the Bathroom…..
From me:
Science is doomed, like every other human endeavour, to the limits of being human.
From you: I guess you’ve found your limit. The rest of us would like to try to learn more. The process of science as a means of discovery is not showing any signs of slowing down nor losing its ability to fascinate and enlighten.
So I’ve found my human limitations but you and your pals are going to learn much more with your superhumanity? I thought “super” anything was off the scientific agenda? Science IS doomed to human limitations because all scientists are human. Though sometimes I have my doubts as sometimes they have their doubts.
I’m far from anti-science, its ability to fascinate and enlighten. I am very opposed to the suppression of truth, legitimate argument and free speech. This purportedly off-topic comment will have to give me pause. Got work to do.
Hey Wes, how come comments to my off-topic post don’t get shunted to the “Special Area”? It creates an interesting effect, people disagreeing with an invisible, silent, possibly supernatural entity. Curioser and curioser.
Comment #3223
Posted by Jack Shea on May 31, 2004 02:51 AM (e) (s)
Pim:
…for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.
I’m not a Christian but I couldn’t agree more. I go with the Einsteinian “everything is miracle”, including our fumbling in the dark trying to work it all out, in some ways the most fascinating miracle of all. We are defined by the limits of our capacity to know. Everything beyond that is God, Mind, The Final Solution, call it what you will. The Eternally Elusive Adorable Magnificently Beautiful Shapeshifter….EEAMBS
Comment #3227
Posted by Virge on May 31, 2004 06:22 AM (e) (s)
Jack Shea tried desperately to put words into my mouth by saying:
So I’ve found my human limitations but you and your pals are going to learn much more with your superhumanity? I thought “super” anything was off the scientific agenda?
Jack,
You were the one who introduced the “super” term. My claim was clear: science has not yet met the limits imposed by our humanity and isn’t showing signs of slowing.
BTW, I loved the way you spurt those classic lines like, “Yes, it is a belief system which bases its tenets on proven fact.” Your cuteness lies in the way you broadcast your complete ignorance of the philosophy of science.
Could someone please knock a hole in the bathroom ceiling so Jack can hear the stars singing to him?
I’m done feeding the troll now.
Comment #3228
Posted by Jim Anderson on May 31, 2004 06:57 AM (e) (s)
Was I indicating that science was unique? No, I was challenging science’s view of its own uniqueness.
Okay, then, science isn’t unique, except in its own eyes.
Is science unique? Yes, it is a belief system which bases its tenets on proven fact.
No, wait, science is unique, and bases its tenets on proven “facts” which are also mutable.
I’d suggest a scientist’s perspective, maybe Perakh’s “Science in the Eyes of a Scientist,” from Unintelligent Design, as a better definition of “science.” Otherwise, you’re hacking at a straw man.
Comment #3229
Posted by john on May 31, 2004 07:29 AM (e) (s)
Pim,
You posted in reply to Jack Shea…
Jack Shea: Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human
I agree, for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.
…Pim, as a Christian, I agree with you, ie. God created all things. That’s Intelligent Design, no matter what natural processes He used to do the Creating.
I am assuming that you use the word “ignorance” to refer to some of the Creationists theories, and from some of what I have heard of these theories, that is fair. But the gist of the Creationists theories is this, God created all things. That is all that is important for anyone to know. I have no problem with anyone, scientist or not, trying to learn more about the natural processes involved. But like Jack says, Science (and men) must accept their human limitations. Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator. So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) “hard-Evs” (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn’t exist. (What is that quote?…something like, “The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)
Comment #3230
Posted by john on May 31, 2004 07:36 AM (e) (s)
Pim,
You posted in reply to Jack Shea…
Jack Shea: Until science produces the first living organism from nothing Intelligent Design will continue to be the theory of preference for your average human
I agree, for many an appeal to ignorance seems appealing and until science catches up with our knowledge people may find hope in the gaps of our knowledge. Personally, as a Christian I find more hope in what my Designer is showing me. The glory of His Creation through some exciting natural processes.
…Pim, as a Christian, I agree with you, ie. God created all things. That’s Intelligent Design, no matter what natural processes He used to do the Creating.
I am assuming that you use the word “ignorance” to refer to some of the Creationists theories, and from some of what I have heard of these theories, that is fair. But the gist of the Creationists theories is this, God created all things. That is all that is important for anyone to know. I have no problem with anyone, scientist or not, trying to learn more about the natural processes involved. But like Jack says, Science (and men) must accept their human limitations. Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator. So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) “hard-Evs” (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn’t exist. (What is that quote?…something like, “The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)
Comment #3231
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 31, 2004 08:44 AM (e) (s)
So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) “hard-Evs” (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn’t exist.
The only specific person referred to by Jack as a “hard-Ev” in the above was me, and I believe God exists. So you either have the definition wrong or Jack misapplied the term. I will ask either of you to point out where I have *ever* claimed that evolutionary biology proves God does not exist. It should be quite amusing for you two to sort through the thousands of messages I’ve posted over the years and still come up empty. Such certainly was not present in the entry post at issue.
Comment #3238
Posted by Russell on May 31, 2004 11:15 AM (e) (s)
John:
So the real ignorance is displayed by the … “hard-Evs” … who claim that their theory proves that God doesn’t exist.
Me:
Hear, Hear! That would indeed be a ridiculous claim.
John:
(What is that quote?…something like, “The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)
Me:
Richard Dawkins wrote something like that. He is an outspoken atheist, but this hardly amounts to a claim that ToE disproves the existence of god. I’ll be surprised if anyone can show me a quote from him that does make that claim.
Comment #3239
Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 31, 2004 11:25 AM (e) (s)
John: Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator. So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) “hard-Evs” (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn’t exist.
Science can never claim that it disproves the existence of a God or deal with the supernatural. But perhaps you can quote some of these hard-Evs words to see what they are claiming?
Comment #3300
Posted by john on June 3, 2004 08:30 PM (e) (s)
Pim and Wesley,
From the www.talkorigins.com FAQ’s…
Philosophical Materialistic Evolution
Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.
* Richard Dawkins
* William Provine
Now Pim and Wesley, I did not accuse either of you holding this view, in fact I acknowledged Pim’s claim to be a Christian. Here’s exactly what I said…
…Pim, as a Christian, I agree with you, ie. God created all things. That’s Intelligent Design, no matter what natural processes He used to do the Creating.
I am assuming that you use the word “ignorance” to refer to some of the Creationists theories, and from some of what I have heard of these theories, that is fair. But the gist of the Creationists theories is this, God created all things. That is all that is important for anyone to know. I have no problem with anyone, scientist or not, trying to learn more about the natural processes involved. But like Jack says, Science (and men) must accept their human limitations. Science (and men) can never disprove the existence of a Creator. So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) “hard-Evs” (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn’t exist. (What is that quote?…something like, “The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)
And by the way, Pim, you never did acknowledge what you meant by the word “ignorance”, so I will assume that I was right in my assumption, that the word, ignorance, referred to Creationism. All I was asking you, Pim, was to also state that this view of evolution, which I mistakenly termed “Hardline Evolution”, but should be termed, “Philosophical Materialistic Evolution” and which does CLAIM that God does not exist, was the true ignorance.
So Pim and Wesley, you believe in both God and evolution, so I have no problem with you. Perhaps you’re not even aware that the theory of evolution is being taught in high schools and colleges all over this country, (probably all over the world), improperly, that is, it is being taught as a theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which “proves” to students that God does not exist. Of course in this country, to even mention God in school, is unconstitutional. I have a big problem with that. Evolution should be taught as the theory that it is; a theory that we all should be able to agree upon, can not disprove the existence of God the Creator. That is the truth; the way we are now teaching evolution is ignorant!
Comment #3302
Posted by Jack Krebs on June 3, 2004 08:53 PM (e) (s)
John writes,
[quote[ Perhaps you’re not even aware that the theory of evolution is being taught in high schools and colleges all over this country, (probably all over the world), improperly, that is, it is being taught as a theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which “proves” to students that God does not exist. Of course in this country, to even mention God in school, is unconstitutional.[/quote]
John, both of these things are untrue.
Science teachers do not teach that evolution is a “theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which “proves” to students that God does not exist.” A high school teaching that would be rightfully reprimanded for doing so. I really doubt that you can show evidence that science teachers teach that evolution eliminates the need for God, or disproves him. (Of course there are a few famous scientists who have made remarks like this about their own personal beliefs, but those beliefs are not science, and they are not taught in science classes.)
Of course, your other remark that mentioning God in school is unconstitutional is blatantly false. Schools, as an institution, can not promote one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Students, however, have a large amount of freedom to discuss their religious beliefs in school, and students regularly find references to God and religion in their literature and social studies classes. The only thing unconstitutional is for the school itself, in its official capacity, to endorse a particular religious viewpoint.
Comment #3314
Posted by Jack Shea on June 4, 2004 06:07 AM (e) (s)
Virge:
Does an Elizabethan concept of cosmological harmony represent the limit of what you want people to learn about the universe?
I wasn’t suggesting any such return. I was indicating that a cosmological belief which science “invalidated” for hundreds of years has now been returned to the fold by science. This is an illustration of my major point which is that science is a very moveable feast.
You seem to be supporting an anti-science (or possibly anti-education) movement.
Why do you think this? Because I suggest that science has limits (humanity, reason) and because it does bad things (nuclear weapons, poisoned water and air, etc)? I’m just stating obvious truths in the hope that some scientists might get the message that science is not omnipotent nor is it always beneficial. Science is the religion of our age and is filled with the same nonsense and knowledge, life-enhancements and life-destroyers, wisdom and folly as any other religion. My main argument is that science needs to learn to co-exist with other belief systems. Science is superior to other belief systems in some respects, inferior in others.
Your cuteness lies in the way you broadcast your complete ignorance of the philosophy of science.
Could someone please knock a hole in the bathroom ceiling so Jack can hear the stars singing to him?
Gee Virge, I thought we were all friends here? If you want to discuss something I’ve said then please try to understand it first before you decide to just kick it out of your way. You haven’t targeted anything I’ve said with argument, you’ve resorted to puerile name-calling and ad hominems. That gets us nowhere.
Yes, someone please knock a hole in the ghetto ceiling so we can all hear some stars. I don’t hear you deny that they’re singing, Virge.
Comment #3317
Posted by Jack Shea on June 4, 2004 06:33 AM (e) (s)
Wesley:
The only specific person referred to by Jack as a “hard-Ev” in the above was me, and I believe God exists.
I can see I’ve made some incorrect basic assumptions about neodarwinists. Learning all the time.
Comment #3320
Posted by Smokey on June 4, 2004 06:59 AM (e) (s)
John,
So the real ignorance is displayed by the (as Jack Shea called them in this thread) “hard-Evs” (which I am assuming stands for Hardline Evolutionists) who claim that their theory proves that God doesn’t exist. (What is that quote?…something like, “The theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.)
Who has made this claim? I am an atheist, but I am hardly under the impression that God has been proven not to exist. Such proof is, in principle, impossible. What I do believe, and what the quote you cite means, is that the theory of evolution by natural selection has made God unnecessary, at least as an explanatory mechanism for life. Evolutionary theory has rendered the teleological argument for the existence of god null and void.
I will join Jack Krebs in asking you to document any cases in which high school biology teachers are teaching that evolutionary theory has any implications whatsoever to the existence or non-existence of God/god.
Comment #3321
Posted by Russell on June 4, 2004 07:05 AM (e) (s)
Smokey: I will join Jack Krebs in asking you to document any cases in which high school biology teachers are teaching that evolutionary theory has any implications whatsoever to the existence or non-existence of God/god.
Me too. Even more - when you find examples of such misdeeds, I will sign a petition demanding that they cease and desist.
Comment #3322
Posted by Virge on June 4, 2004 08:17 AM (e) (s)
Dear “all friends” Jack Shea,
It’s no use trying to pretend that you’re sincerely trying to hold a rational discussion. e.g.
I was indicating that a cosmological belief which science “invalidated” for hundreds of years has now been returned to the fold by science.
You know as well as we do that the belief in perfectly circular orbits of planets locked in crystal spheres centred on the earth hasn’t been restored to scientific credibility.
This bathroom needs a can of TrollBeGone.
Comment #3352
Posted by Johnnie C. on June 4, 2004 11:36 AM (e) (s)
You seem to have a penchant for strayin’.
No I don’t, liar.
central question of my rather, small observation is whether you can determine design, without knowing the designer, in the same way you can determine murder, without knowing the murderer.
And in spite of the fact that you have claim to a law degree and you’ve been reading this blog for a couple weeks at least you have “no idea” what the “answer” to your “small observation is” is. What a pathetic lying joke.
Navy Davy, I assume you are sitting in front of a computer when you read this. Did a human design it? Do you know the name of the human who designed it? Is your computer designed?
You’re welcome. Don’t forget to remind your mommy to wipe you.
Comment #3354
Posted by Great White Wonder on June 4, 2004 11:41 AM (e) (s)
Smokey said
[What I do believe, and what the quote you cite means, is that the theory of evolution by natural selection has made God unnecessary, at least as an explanatory mechanism for life.]
I might add that even without the “Darwinian” theory of evolution, God is not *necessary* to explain the existence or evolution of life. It’s easy to imagine other theories, even worthless theories, without invoking the Bearded Guy up in the Clouds.
Comment #3355
Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 11:47 AM (e) (s)
You’re welcome. Don’t forget to remind your mommy to wipe you.
Do you speak like this to people in person or only thru the safety of cyberspace? Seems like you wouldn’t make many friends.
You know, Johnnie, you don’t have to follow me around on Panda’s Thumb. There’s probably enough room not to cross paths:)
Cheers, Navy Davy
Comment #3361
Posted by Johnnie C. on June 4, 2004 12:11 PM (e) (s)
Amyl Davy asked
Do you speak like this to people in person or only thru the safety of cyberspace?
The adults I interact with do not generally pretend to be as stupid as you pretend to be, Navy Davy. At least, I assume you are pretending.
I’m so very sorry if my sarcasm injured your fragile ego. Perhaps next time you could spend a bit more time thinking before you accuse me of straying from the topic, then post a silly question and claim that you have “no idea” what the answer is.
I assume that your question was answered to your satisfaction, in any event.
Johnnie C.
Comment #3375
Posted by Jack Krebs on June 4, 2004 02:29 PM (e) (s)
It’s interesting how the Bathroom Wall can sprout some significant issues. I like Russell’s idea: if someone finds a science teacher teaching in a public school science class, as a conclusion of science, that science in general or evolutionary theory in particular eliminates the need for God or disproves the existence of God, I will sign (or write if need be) a petition stating that that position should not be taught as science and asking that that person be asked to refrain from so teaching.
Comment #3384
Posted by darwinfinch on June 4, 2004 03:33 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy: resident, churlish troll at the P.T. Did he pay for the franchise? Why bother responding to him UNLESS he happens to raise, without his knowledge, an interesting point?
I needed no more proof that anyone still in favor of the creationist or creationist-lite ID nonsense after going through even the lay evidence is completely insincere. And yet I receive such wherever I chase this topic.
How it pains, and angers, me to be unable to even basically respect an opponent.
Comment #3469
Posted by Gary Hurd on June 6, 2004 11:58 AM (e) (s)
I like Russell’s idea: if someone finds a science teacher teaching in a public school science class, as a conclusion of science, that science in general or evolutionary theory in particular eliminates the need for God or disproves the existence of God, I will sign (or write if need be) a petition stating that that position should not be taught as science and asking that that person be asked to refrain from so teaching.
If you liked the idea, you shouldn’t have altered it. Russel said nothing about the “need” for God. This is why creationists have to be watched very carefully.
Does science directly address the existance of God?: No.
The “need” idea can be taken in two ways,
1) the psychological well being of some people seems contingent on their belief in the supernatural. This is an issue available to scientific study by specialists in psychopathology.
2) does a competent scientific theory “need” a supernatural being to manipulate reality? No. This is similar to Laplace’s retort to Napoleon regarding the absent God in his analysis of planetary movement, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
Comment #3473
Posted by Jack Krebs on June 6, 2004 02:03 PM (e) (s)
Gary writes,
If you liked the idea, you shouldn’t have altered it. Russel said nothing about the “need” for God.
No, but the poster named john did - he was the one who first brought this phrase up, and it was he that I was quoting (See the post before mine on June 3.)
Here are two of your statements I agree with:
Does science directly address the existance of God?: No.
2) does a competent scientific theory “need” a supernatural being to manipulate reality? No. This is similar to Laplace’s retort to Napoleon regarding the absent God in his analysis of planetary movement, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
Many people believe, irrespective of their metaphysical or religious beliefs, that the physical world has an internal consistency to it such phenomena in the physical world can be explained in terms of other physical phenomena. Many religious people, be they Christian theist or others, would agree with the above two statements.
However I don’t agree with the following:
1) the psychological well being of some people seems contingent on their belief in the supernatural. This is an issue available to scientific study by specialists in psychopathology.
Our psychological well-being covers a lot of topics, and they certainly aren’t all aspects of “psychopathology.” For instance, the belief that our consciousness is in some undefinable way in touch with or related to some feature of the universe that is different than it’s physical manifestation is not a “psychopathological” idea even though it is also not an idea directly accessible to science.
Comment #3475
Posted by Gary Hurd on June 6, 2004 03:10 PM (e) (s)
Jack (Krebs),
re “Need”
No, but the poster named john did - he was the one who first brought this phrase up, and it was he that I was quoting (See the post before mine on June 3.)
As I said, this is why creationists must be watched carefully. Dr. John offered no data in support of his claim that there were teachers all over the world that used science to argue that there were no gods.
“Perhaps you’re not even aware that the theory of evolution is being taught in high schools and colleges all over this country, (probably all over the world), improperly, that is, it is being taught as a theory which at least eliminates the need for the existence of God, and at worst as a theory which “proves” to students that God does not exist. Of course in this country, to even mention God in school, is unconstitutional. I have a big problem with that. Evolution should be taught as the theory that it is; a theory that we all should be able to agree upon, can not disprove the existence of God the Creator. That is the truth; the way we are now teaching evolution is ignorant!
I have the impression that you find some little bit of credibility in john’s nonsense, at least to the extent that you modified Russell’s notion to correspond.
John’s “need for the existence of God” in the sense that Laplace used it is certainly eliminated by evolutionary biology as an explanation of the origin of species. From my reading, I find that the “need for the existence of God” is not necessary for understanding the origin of life on Earth. This is just the same as we no longer “need the existence of God” to explain thunder, or disease.
The facts seem to be that Dr. john lives in a different world from the rest of us. For example, where is it true that ” … to even mention God in school, is unconstitutional.”? And, we have yet to see any evidence that evolution is taught “… as a theory which “proves” to students that God does not exist.
When I taught in psychiatry, we called this a delusion. There are billions of healthy people that do not depend on these supernatural beliefs for their psychological health. As a colleague once told me, “To believe in ghosts is not insane, but to see them is.” Or, as I saw on a bumper sticker, “Those voices in your head aren’t God” This is why I include this under the topics properly studied by specialists in psychopathology.
Comment #3478
Posted by Russell on June 6, 2004 03:47 PM (e) (s)
Re: Gary’s bumper sticker sighting:
“Those voices in your head aren’t God”
I love it! I wonder where I can get one.
Dr. John’s take on evolution being taught as theology (or “anti-theology”) seems to represent the same sort of persecution complex expressed in this bumper sticker (available here):
I broke the rules. I prayed in a public school. I’m such a menace to society.
Interestingly Cal Thomas, ultra-right columnist and alumnus of Falwell’s Moral Majority organization, wrote a column a few years back taking Christians to task for exactly this kind of posturing. I don’t have the original, but here’s our local creationists taking umbrage at his calling them whiners.
Comment #3482
Posted by Jack Shea on June 7, 2004 03:51 AM (e) (s)
Dear (on the) Virge (of a nervous breakdown):
It’s no use trying to pretend that you’re sincerely trying to hold a rational discussion. e.g.
JACK: I was indicating that a cosmological belief which science “invalidated” for hundreds of years has now been returned to the fold by science.
VIRGE: You know as well as we do that the belief in perfectly circular orbits of planets locked in crystal spheres centred on the earth hasn’t been restored to scientific credibility.
Virge, dear buddy, pal, homey, are you mad? I never brought up “crystal spheres”. You can’t accuse me of irrationality and idiocy based on something I didn’t say. “Planets emit sound” was my observation. Old idea, newly corroborated by science. True or false?
You don’t want to discuss anything. You just want to whack someone.
Comment #3483
Posted by Jack Shea on June 7, 2004 04:20 AM (e) (s)
Gary:
John’s “need for the existence of God” in the sense that Laplace used it is certainly eliminated by evolutionary biology as an explanation of the origin of species.
The present explanations of evolutionary biology for the origin of species are initially plausible but ultimately weak interpretations of the available scientific evidence. These interpretations are not science, they are a belief system. I say “belief system” because the fixed theory is well beyond hypothesis, where differing hypotheses are given some ground. ID is also a hypothesis with the potential to become a belief system should it ever succeed in gaining ground, horror of horrors. Neodarwinists haven’t joined up all the dots in their theory. Because certain effects are observed at a microevolutionary level it is assumed that the entire genome is affected in the same way, despite evidence to the contrary. Neodarwinism is science up to the point where gene shuffling and recombination are observed to produce variations in superficial attributes. Beyond that point -water creatures becoming land creatures then returning to the water, eg- it is all fantasy, no more proveable or evidential than pairs of every animal walking onboard Noah’s ark.
We don’t need God for explanations of evolution, we need authentic science. Neither Bible-thumping nor Punctuated Equilibrium does the job.
Comment #3485
Posted by Russell on June 7, 2004 04:45 AM (e) (s)
Jack:
Because certain effects are observed at a microevolutionary level it is assumed that the entire genome is affected in the same way, despite evidence to the contrary.
(1) I can see “micro”-evolutionary changes with my own eyes, within my own (admittedly short) attention span. Now it’s up to the evolution-deniers to demonstrate to me what is the upper limit of that sort of change over millions of years.
(2) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what - specifically - is that “evidence to the contrary”?
Comment #3486
Posted by Jack Shea on June 7, 2004 05:50 AM (e) (s)
Russell:
(2) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what - specifically - is that “evidence to the contrary”?
It never flies on this site (no pun intended) so I’ve given up identifying it. All the Drosophila experimentation. Why no appearance of any significant branching into something other than Drosophila? All the bacterial experimentation, same result. All the intensive breeding of various vertebrates, millions of generations, and yet dogs stay dogs, horses stay horses, with no suggestion that the basic genotype is going anywhere. The only reply I’ve gotten is “So what?” from Reed Cartwright. I may be missing something but it seems that the most obvious physical, scientific evidence we have suggests a profound genetic homeostasis, even in microscopic organisms where random effects and natural selection should be having a field day, given the relative simplicity of such organisms and the “blank slate” nature offered by single-celled existences to the expansion on a basic theme which is purportedly the process of neodarwinian evolution. I’m missing the link between undeniably observed limitations to the shape-changing abilities of living creatures and the rejection of these observations in order to maintain a theory which flies in the face of these observations. Please enlighten.
Comment #3487
Posted by Russell on June 7, 2004 06:56 AM (e) (s)
Please enlighten.
OK - but you have to promise to really think about this. You may “feel” that there’s not enough time, not enough genetic plasticity, or whatever; but that doesn’t count. You have to come up with something more explicit, more quantitative, than “obvious limitations”
All the Drosophila experimentation. Why no appearance of any significant branching into something other than Drosophila?
And I thought I had a short attention span! Before you can even start thinking about “macro”-evolution, you have to really get down and dirty with the concept of deep time. I suspect this is the number one hurdle for evo-deniers. How long have we been experimenting with fruitflies? A few decades? What kind of form-changing selection have we imposed?
…dogs stay dogs… I’m missing the link between undeniably observed limitations to the shape-changing abilities of living creatures and the rejection of these observations in order to maintain a theory which flies in the face of these observations
Probably you followed the post here on dog breeds. Let’s do a little thought experiment. Take a couple of chihuahuas and leave them on a tropical island with lots of whatever it is chihuahuas can eat in nature. Now take a couple of Norwegian elkhounds, leave them on some arctic island with lots of caribou. Come back in, say, 5,000,000 years. What undeniable shape-changing limitations must I concede - even in the short time we have been breeding dogs (maybe 5000 years?) What will happen to those limitations when I allow 1000X as much time? By what definition are these island canines 5,000,000 years hence likely not to have “speciated apart”?
…obvious physical, scientific evidence… suggests a profound genetic homeostasis…
Not so obvious to me. But then, having spent a lifetime in a laboratory studying biology, I may not get out as much as you do. Can you quantify the profundity of this homeostasis?
… even in microscopic organisms where random effects and natural selection should be having a field day
Oh, they are! Are you familiar with the details of antibiotic resistance genetics? (Depending on what level of evo-denial we’re dealing with here, this next one might not be meaningful) - How about all those microbes exquisitely adapted to recently emerging host species?
It [evidence as to the limits of evolutionary change] never flies on this site…
I’ve tried to show you why.
Comment #3493
Posted by Steve on June 7, 2004 10:57 AM (e) (s)
I appreciate the response or two to my question, Why argue with the creationists? Perhaps there weren’t many replies because it was offtopic. I think it’s a valid and important question, though, so I’ll ask it again.
Obviously there are reasons they must be fought publicly and politically, but since so many if not most of the creationists either 1) are liars or 2) would refuse to accept that the sky is blue if their bible says it’s plaid, what’s the point? I don’t want to argue it, I just want to know why you guys do it. I’ll discuss evolution with evolutionists or people who are intelligent and open-minded, but force myself not to debate creationists, because I think it’s pointless. But many people do not. So what are the reasons? I’m really curious.
thanks,
Steve
Comment #3494
Posted by Jack Shea on June 7, 2004 11:06 AM (e) (s)
Russell:
Before you can even start thinking about “macro”-evolution, you have to really get down and dirty with the concept of deep time. I suspect this is the number one hurdle for evo-deniers. How long have we been experimenting with fruitflies? A few decades? What kind of form-changing selection have we imposed?
Fruitfly experiments go back 70 years, starting I believe with Dobzhansky. Once the ball got rolling of course the little fly became a favourite experimental animal. Let’s say 100 million generations of fruit flies over 70 years. I bet it’s more. Not a whisper of anything except mutations resultant from reshuffling the existing genome and the effects of radiation, chemicals, etc. This seems pretty “deep time” to me.
5000 years of animal breeding. How many millions, billions of generations does this represent? Genomic variation is clearly visible in superficial animal characteristics but the essential animals remain unaltered. All dogs, despite wild differences in size, etc, have the same number of spinal vertebrae! I call this profound homeostasis.
From what I’ve read of antibiotic resistance genetics the population shift is the result of selection in favour of bacteria initially possessing resistance. I’m not aware of bacteria developing resistance as the result of new genetic information. That would smack of Lamarckism, would it not? But back to my original contention, how many trillions of bacterial generations have been observed in the lab, with nothing but bacteria at the beginning and the end of every experimental observation?
What are the “…microbes exquisitely adapted to recently emerging host species…”? Sounds interesting.
So, regarding deep time, it doesn’t work for me. We’ve already done it. Bacteria and Drosophila, with their very brief generational spans, effectively reproduce the “deep time” of animals with much longer generational spans. Even the brief 5000 years of animal breeding is enough of a chunk of time, given the size of the populations and the close observation of them, to see at least the beginning of the emergence of something which is on its way to becoming a new animal. But it isn’t there. The multiplier is zero. Times 5 million still equals zero.
Comment #3496
Posted by Great White Wonder on June 7, 2004 11:15 AM (e) (s)
5000 years of animal breeding. How many millions, billions of generations does this represent?
Jack, let’s take dog breeding as an example. Why don’t you tell us how many billions of generations of horses are represented by 5000 years of horse breeding. Let’s see if you can do grade school math. Be sure to state all your assumptions.
I’m waiting.
Comment #3497
Posted by Great White Wonder on June 7, 2004 11:17 AM (e) (s)
Geez my brain is busted. I started with horses but switched to dogs but didn’t finish my edits. Jack, you can choose horses or dogs.
My apologies for the confusion.
I’m still waiting.
Comment #3498
Posted by Russell on June 7, 2004 11:46 AM (e) (s)
Steve:
Why argue with the creationists? …. I think it’s a valid and important question,… so I’ll ask it again.
Obviously there are reasons they must be fought publicly and politically, but since so many if not most of the creationists either 1) are liars or 2) would refuse to accept that the sky is blue if their bible says it’s plaid, what’s the point? I don’t want to argue it, I just want to know why you guys do it… So what are the reasons? I’m really curious.
It is a valid question, and I agree with you. In this particular case, it’s partly an exercise in suspending cynicism (Jack has stated,IIRC, that he is neither a liar nor a christian).
More practically: I live in one of those battleground states where these little dramas are played out for a live school board audience. The board tends to be less impressed with my jaw hitting the floor when I hear these arguments than by a relatively calm “non-nonplussed” refutation. For me, anyway, that takes a little practice.
Jack:
If 70 years fulfills your definition of “deep time”, I think I’ve pretty much learned everything I can learn from you. Thanks, it’s been real!
Comment #3499
Posted by Russell on June 7, 2004 11:51 AM (e) (s)
Steve:
Why argue with the creationists? …. I think it’s a valid and important question,… so I’ll ask it again.
Obviously there are reasons they must be fought publicly and politically, but since so many if not most of the creationists either 1) are liars or 2) would refuse to accept that the sky is blue if their bible says it’s plaid, what’s the point? I don’t want to argue it, I just want to know why you guys do it… So what are the reasons? I’m really curious.
It is a valid question, and I agree with you. In this particular case, it’s partly an exercise in suspending cynicism (Jack has stated,IIRC, that he is neither a liar nor a christian).
More practically: I live in one of those battleground states where these little dramas are played out for a live school board audience. The board tends to be less impressed with my jaw hitting the floor when I hear these arguments than by a relatively calm “non-nonplussed” refutation. For me, anyway, that takes a little practice.
Jack:
If 70 years fulfills your definition of “deep time”, I think I’ve pretty much learned everything I can learn from you. Thanks, it’s been real!
Comment #3500
Posted by Smokey on June 7, 2004 12:00 PM (e) (s)
Jack Shea:
Let’s say 100 million generations of fruit flies over 70 years. I bet it’s more.
5000 years of animal breeding. How many millions, billions of generations does this represent?
I’m speechless. Fortunately, no comment is necessary. A calculator, maybe, but no comment.
BTW, I’ll take that bet, Jack. Name the stakes.
Comment #3501
Posted by Roving Reporter on June 7, 2004 12:45 PM (e) (s)
Texas Republican Party Platform:
The Party believes that scientific topics, such as the question of universe and life origins and environmental theories, should not be constrained to one opinion or viewpoint. We support the teaching equally of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories—as Texas now requires (but has yet to enforce) in public school science course standards. We urge revising all environmental education standards to require this also. We support individual teachers’ right to teach creation science in Texas public schools.
see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ for more info
Comment #3502
Posted by Andrea Bottaro on June 7, 2004 01:14 PM (e) (s)
Let’s say 100 million generations of fruit flies over 70 years. I bet it’s more. Not a whisper of anything except mutations resultant from reshuffling the existing genome and the effects of radiation, chemicals, etc. This seems pretty “deep time” to me.
The only deep thing here is the level your argument is sinking to. 100 million generations in 70 years is about 4,000 generations/day, or 170/hour, or 3/minute. That’s a heck of a rapidly reproducing fruit fly you’ve got there! Almost 100 times faster than E. coli.
5000 years of animal breeding. How many millions, billions of generations does this represent?
Uh, for most domesticated mammals and birds, that’s a few thousands, at best. Even mice reproduce every 2 months, and they are fast.
Genomic variation is clearly visible in superficial animal characteristics but the essential animals remain unaltered. All dogs, despite wild differences in size, etc, have the same number of spinal vertebrae! I call this profound homeostasis.
Well, as a matter of fact, the number of vertebrae, and their distribution in the various “segments” (thoracic, lumbar, etc) are quite variable within species (except for cervical vertebrae). In fact, only a minority of humans (~30 %, if I remember correctly), have the “standard” number or distribution of vertebrae. The generally listed number of vertebrae in humans is 33, but having as many as 35 is not totally uncommon. Whether this shows that people with missing or extra vertebrae are not, to use your jargon, “essential” humans, I’ll leave to you.
Comment #3504
Posted by Roving Reporter on June 7, 2004 01:46 PM (e) (s)
Duh — note that I posted the 2000 platform, thinking it was the 2004 platform. Not that I expect the 2004 platform to differ substantially …
Comment #3506
Posted by Jack Shea on June 7, 2004 03:16 PM (e) (s)
All:
I’m estimating the total number of generations of Drosophila observed in laboratory experiments over 70 years, obviously. A lot of simultaneous generating. So, in all the labs in all the world do we have 3 fruit flies bearing fruit every minute? I think so. Apologies to Bogart.
Now at the risk of inciting a lynching check this out. I’m also counting each individual fly as a “generation” since each fly has an equal chance of producing the kind of “new information” mutation characteristic(s) which would indicate a branching out into something that is not a fruit fly. Random mutation is never going to initially emerge in an entire population, otherwise it can in no way be seen to be a random effect. So we’re looking for mutations of a “non-fruit fly nature” in individuals, not populations and the generational calculations must reflect that. I’m assuming that at least some of the characteristics randomly derived would (a) be noticed by the lab team, (b) prove beneficial for survival and that these would be (c) protected by the lab team for their novelty and therefore (d) amplified both mutationally and by selection and that, given the numbers, we would eventually see something emerge that is at least vaguely unlike a fruit fly. Nope, never been seen. In all the labs in all the world over 70 years 100 million generations is conservative. So yes, that’s “deep time” because our true scale of measurement is not time but generations. We’ve observed 100 million fruit fly reproductions with nothing diverging from fruit fly.
Same for horses and dogs. I’m not talking about population generations but individual generations. Random mutation will not be observed initially in populations but in individuals. Each individual generation has an equal chance of producing a mutation which would be selected for or against. If selected for, the trait has a chance of spreading throughout a population. So again, millions of generations.
Hell, while we’re at it let’s apply the calculation to humans. How many individual human generations have there been in 10,000 years? Billions. How many humans on their way to becoming something else do we see walking around?
Thanks for the info on human vertebrae, Andrea. Not a lot of variance though. With dogs, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t vary from (I think) 37.
Oh, a little fruit fly PS: I remember reading that the little buggers have a kind of built-in genetic “memory effect” and that no matter how badly they get blasted out of shape, as long as they are able to reproduce after a few generations the population reverts to a “normal” state. If anyone has this article I’d appreciate its URL. If not I’ll search for it again.
Didn’t Dobzhansky, the great grandaddy of Drosophila genetics, register his despair that after a lifetime spent breeding the little critters he had never witnessed anything that qualified as “evolution”? In the grand sense of course.
Comment #3507
Posted by Great White Wonder on June 7, 2004 03:57 PM (e) (s)
Geez, Jack, you are either a giant lying sack of horse manure or you are a complete moron.
Okay, so if we take your bogus definition of “generations,” and we take your bogus calculations at face value and assume 100 million “generations” in 70 years, then we’ve got 1.4 x 10E13 “generations” over 10 million years to work with (note: I’m giving you a big break in assuming that there are no more fruit flies in the wild than in the lab).
That’s a lot of generations, Jack. Given that it takes a very minor mutation to turn a fly (order Diptera, having one pair of wings) into a non-fly (with two pairs of wings), I’m thinking it’s likely that such an event probably happened over the course of 1 x 10E13 “generations”. Or it happened the other way around. Or both. Several times.
Bottom line, Jack, is your argument is bogus. Just because you’ve never seen a fruit fly change into a chimpanzee doesn’t mean that God made fruit flies or chimpanzees. That is particularly true when a much more likely, predictive and useful theory has been developed and explored for a 100 years in the face of critics who are much much more intelligent and clever than you.
Lastly, please note that I am revolted by your lying and hypocracy (or saddened by your handicap, whichever is the case).
Comment #3509
Posted by Steve on June 7, 2004 04:15 PM (e) (s)
Thanks Rus. I suspect a lot of people ‘argue’ just to keep abreast of the creationist arguments currently in vogue. Me, I don’t feel a need to do it, because I think the following statements—a) Creationism’s not testable, so not science b)creationism is clearly a religion/philosophy, so not a science. c) the overwhelming consensus among biologists does not merely support evolution, but says there’s currently no scientific alternative. d) there are thousands of papers, books, even entire journals, supporting/using evolution, none for creationism e) For Edwards v. Aguillard, 72 Nobel Laureate scientists signed a statement that creationism is not science and musn’t be taught as science—comprise several times over a conclusive set of reasons why science classes should not be allowed to pretend there’s any competing theory. In short, I believe it’s not even necessary to get into any biological details to refute that religious nonsense is science. I suspect it might even be an error, because it causes the lay audience to start evaluating the scientific merits of the details of evolution, which they’re not capable of doing. This blog is full of creationists trying to argue science who have no training in science, and they can’t even understand when they’re refuted, so they will soldier on, wasting everyone’s time.
The creationists’ arguments do slowly evolve, though there’s not much Intelligent Design involved ;-). (For example, the wacko method of counting generations seen above)
Well, as a matter of fact, the number of vertebrae, and their distribution in the various “segments” (thoracic, lumbar, etc) are quite variable within species (except for cervical vertebrae). In fact, only a minority of humans (~30 %, if I remember correctly), have the “standard” number or distribution of vertebrae. The generally listed number of vertebrae in humans is 33, but having as many as 35 is not totally uncommon. Whether this shows that people with missing or extra vertebrae are not, to use your jargon, “essential” humans, I’ll leave to you.
Wow, that is neat. I had no idea. Speaking of that, I really tried to find photos of vestigial tails on humans last year, but didn’t find any. Plenty of records of such things, mention in scientific articles, etc. but no photos of the things themselves. Probably because they are so rapidly cut off after birth. If anyone ever encounters such a photo, please send it to me. There is no more dramatic proof of human evolution than those tails, I think.
Comment #3510
Posted by Great White Wonder on June 7, 2004 04:30 PM (e) (s)
Steve
Per your request (always enough time for a fun Google search):
http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm (these things are disgusting, frankly)
http://www.christianwebsite.com/appiesboard/viewtopic.php?t=3550 (scroll down for x-ray)
There’s plenty of articles in PubMed too.
There is no more dramatic proof of human evolution than those tails, I think.
Ah, but the presence of a tail isn’t going to keep you from reproducing or otherwise being “human.” It will enable you to perform some interesting sexual feats, however, that Jack would probably not approve of.
Comment #3512
Posted by Virge on June 7, 2004 04:45 PM (e) (s)
Jack Shea,
I concede. You’ve won your argument.
You’ve proven through your responses that you have the wit and the words to:
- exploit the lack of definition in any written statement,
- redefine your terms as you progress by honing your generalisations to particular instances that can be twisted or reworded to seem relevant, and
- making appeals to evidence that is either non-existent or unsupportable.
I’ll work by a process of induction (even though I’m sure you’d find a Humean reason to dispute my approach) to conclude that no matter what anybody writes here, you will find some way to respond that forces the argument to continue.
I consider it most likely that you are here purely for the joy of frivolous intercourse and roisterous remonstration. It’s also possible that your intent is more sinister—that you hope to render the Panda’s Thumb discussions incomprehensible by your prolific and obfuscated arguments. Unfortunately I still cannot discount the sad possibility that you believe your own arguments.
Regardless of your motives, I expect you’ll respond yet again. I may choose to read your responses at some time.
Comment #3513
Posted by Andrea Bottaro on June 7, 2004 04:55 PM (e) (s)
LOL, Jack, if you seriously believe that evolutionary biology predicts one speciation event every 10^8 new individuals, which is about 2.5 events in the genus Homo per generation in the US alone, and about 50 events worldwide, you do need to do some serious basic reading on the subject.
Thanks for the info on human vertebrae, Andrea. Not a lot of variance though. With dogs, from what I’ve read, it doesn’t vary from (I think) 37.
Frankly, I don’t know about dogs, but first you claimed that the conservation of vertebrae numbers is a sure sign of a supposedly impressive, “profound homeostasis”, then when I told you that humans vary significantly in the number of vertebrae (as many as 10% variants in the population), you said you are not impressed by that variation. With all these backflips, it’s your vertebrae that are in danger!
Oh, a little fruit fly PS: I remember reading that the little buggers have a kind of built-in genetic “memory effect” and that no matter how badly they get blasted out of shape, as long as they are able to reproduce after a few generations the population reverts to a “normal” state. If anyone has this article I’d appreciate its URL. If not I’ll search for it again.
Please do indeed find a reference, as I am quite certain you’re remembering wrong.
Didn’t Dobzhansky, the great grandaddy of Drosophila genetics, register his despair that after a lifetime spent breeding the little critters he had never witnessed anything that qualified as “evolution”? In the grand sense of course.
You may want to find a quote for that as well, or this will go on the same pile as all your other claims about generation counts and vertebrae numbers.
Comment #3514
Posted by Russell on June 7, 2004 04:55 PM (e) (s)
Steve:
There is much in what you say. Personally, I used to think the absence of any “scientific creationism” (or ID, or whatever the latest weasel word for it is) in the scientific literature was ample ammunition to keep it out of the schools. Then along came the Discovery Institute, with their “bibliography” of hijacked literature. When it was pointed out to the school board how bogus that was, and that there was zero ID in the scientific literature, the ID advocates came back with “that just proves the deck is stacked against ID! All the more need to teach it”.
Bottom line: there is no reliable levee in place keeping this sewage from inundating our schools. Without scientists taking an active part in pointing out their errors, creationists would be considerably more successful than they have been. I’m pretty sure that’s true at least here in Ohio.
In the discussion here, I think I’ve just learned a useful lesson, that could be summarized thus:
(specifics & quantitation):(creationist arguments)::(water):(wicked witch of the west)
I think my work here is done… [flush]…
See you back at the bar!
Comment #3517
Posted by Joe P Guy on June 7, 2004 06:12 PM (e) (s)
In honor of Russell:
Jack Shea:
“I’m meeeeeeelting, I’m melting! Oh, what a world! Who woulda thought, a microbiologist like you…!”
With apologies to Jack Shea. Who still unbelievably said there would be 100 million generations of fruit flies in 70 years. And then tried to redefine what a “generation” is. Hmm. Maybe no apologies. ;)
Comment #3518
Posted by steve on June 7, 2004 06:20 PM (e) (s)
very many thanks for the photos. There’s just no way to deny what that tail means. Wow. this image in particular http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/images/Evolution/humans%20… is just incredible. Creationists can say that’s not a real tail, but only fools would believe them.
Comment #3519
Posted by Pim van Meurs on June 7, 2004 06:31 PM (e) (s)
John
And by the way, Pim, you never did acknowledge what you meant by the word “ignorance”, so I will assume that I was right in my assumption, that the word, ignorance, referred to Creationism.
With ‘ignorance’ I am refering to the common approach used by ID proponents to infer intelligent design not through positive theories or hypotheses but rather through appeal to our ignorance namely “X could never have evolved”. When scientists point out that this is hardly self evident and point to likely or plausible scenarios, the ID proponents retreat to “show me step by step how this happened”. In the mean time ID has no reason to contribute to scientific knowledge in any meaningful manner and relies mostly on appeal to ignorance also known as God of the Gaps arguments.
See
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html…
Dembski’s applications of his Explanatory Filter is an excellent example of an appeal to ignorance.
All I was asking you, Pim, was to also state that this view of evolution, which I mistakenly termed “Hardline Evolution”, but should be termed, “Philosophical Materialistic Evolution” and which does CLAIM that God does not exist, was the true ignorance.
I would not call it ignorance for the same reason that I would not call anyone ignorant when claiming that there are not pink fairies. This has nothing to do with ignorance but all to do with beliefs.
The problem is that the issue of the existence of a God will never be resolved scientifically while our ignorance of how God created seems to diminish over time.
Comment #3520
Posted by steve on June 7, 2004 06:37 PM (e) (s)
Creationist: “Verily I say, the fixity of Human, Features such as the Vertebral Bones, insofar as they are never found to vary in Number, testifies to the Divine Providence which has imbued Life with it’s Design.”
Evolutionist: “People have varying numbers of vertegbrae.”
Creationist: “Uh…The numbers of Vertebrae don’t vary too much…uh. (Stupid biologist assholes)…uh anyway The Fixity of the Fruit Fly after husbandry of some three score Years testifies…”
Comment #3523
Posted by Joe P Guy on June 7, 2004 10:22 PM (e) (s)
Just out of scientific curiosity…Dr. Bottaro - does the varied number of vertebrae have any effect on or correlation with height? Or does that depend more on the size of the vertebrae (and other bones)? I’d be interested to know how my vertebra count (at a measly 5’6”) compares to my friend’s vertebra count (he’s 6’5”!).
Comment #3527
Posted by Virge on June 8, 2004 01:40 AM (e) (s)
Here’s my contribution to a possible list of Anti-ID sound bites:
ID: Let’s test it before we feed it to our children
Comment #3530
Posted by Andrea Bottaro on June 8, 2004 05:08 AM (e) (s)
Joe P:
To be honest, I have no clue. As far as I am concerned, the variation in human vertebrae is just a factoid I learned in anatomy classes and never gave another thought to. Who would have known vertebrae are so central to species homeostasis for Creationists? ;-)
But, to hazard an answer, I’d expect that, all other things being equal, vertebral number variation would indeed make a difference height-wise (i.e. the size of each vertebra in people with missing or extra vertebrae is unchanged). However, since human variation for height is already quite extensive, I think overall it contributes quite little to it.
Much more likely than not, you can’t blame your short stature, or your friend’s tallness, to vertebrae.
Comment #3533
Posted by steve on June 8, 2004 08:15 AM (e) (s)
where i’m from, a little redneck town in north florida, the creationism’s a simpler brand than that found here. At the local community college, I remember the anatomy and physiology instructor patiently explaining to a girl that no, the skeleton in class was not a fraud, men aren’t missing one rib where god took it and made woman. Not any dumber, but simpler.
Comment #3536
Posted by Steve Noe on June 8, 2004 10:37 AM (e) (s)
Vertebral factoids: height (5-foot 6-inches versus 6-foot 5-inches) is due to growth in the long bones of the legs, not the vertebrae. Ken Saladin’s ANP text has a nice photo comparing a typical college student to one with achondroplasia, the proper name for what used to be called dwarfism.
Head and torso sizes are pretty much the same, it’s the arms and legs, hands and feet which are different.
Comment #3564
Posted by Johnnie C. on June 8, 2004 04:53 PM (e) (s)
IN MEMORIUM
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003049.html
Woman aren’t “underrepresented” in science. Science isn’t some UN delegation. Woman are just bad at science. Most men are too.
It’s a boring, tedious discipline that attracts many geeks.
Posted by: Navy Davy at January 16, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINK
Comment #3575
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on June 8, 2004 09:56 PM (e) (s)
About the “Adam’s Rib” thing…
Comment #2963
Posted by Steve Reuland on May 27, 2004 07:03 AM (e) (s)
They covered these walls to stop my pen…