U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

Now there's a "real life" response if ever I saw one. Perhaps you had the same Sunday School teacher.

Thank you for your post and the time away from the parade.
The overwhelming impression I get from what you've said is the extent of archaeological data that is used to support evolutionary theory.

I agree (though some theories do have proof). But it is essential that the theories are not disproved. Most theories, especially broad reaching or well established ones, are not wholly discarded when problems arise but amended. I know you think Darwin's theory is fine as is. I disagree. But no matter.

I see that people have enjoyed stumping the archaeologists with false fossils. Maybe they weren't all Creationists, they could have had other motives, like art forgers, wanting the personal satisfaction of fooling the authorities. Maybe its not so conspiratorial.

Do you mean he developed Ice Fish from sticklebacks? That's important. Or do you mean he identified a form of stickle back in the caves different than the free fish. If its the latter, then the different fish could have been created with an 'antifreeze' system in place rather than developing one from a non-antifreeze fish. For example - I end up in the Antarctic with a down parka - maybe I brought it with me before I bought my plane ticket or maybe I got it when I arrived as soon as I felt the cold. Mary my companion on the ice shelf doesn't have a down parka, what has that got to do with how I got mine? Its easy to draw a correlation between me and her, but with out corroborative evidence its a shot in the dark.
I am overwhelmed by the evidence and complexity of life. I am compelled by the mountain of data and evidence in evolutionary theory, I am also interested in some of the content of dissident voices. I don't immediately dismiss them because of ideologies - its irrelevant. All that said I will follow up on some of your references. I appreciate anyone who shares knowledge rather than just gets on their high horse and slags of others. Anyway its getting very late here. The TV has been playing while I've been writing and its all about Obama. It's a good day.

I've got to be off this thread for a couple of days. I've got a work deadline which I've been ignoring and this forum is taking up more of my life than I can afford right now. Part of the reason for posting this message is to committ myself to finshing my work, kinda like telling friends and family you're quitting smoking - a public declaration to clean up your act, or in my case, turn off the internet and work.

Why thanx Eorl! Sunday school for me was sitting up in the balcony pews with my 2 older brothers and a couple of other kids, where they taught me to play poker. I remember one of the kids won a hand, shouted out in glee and that was the last time the kids were sent to the balcony while the sermon was being read. We didn't go to church much after that.

Here's a good example bb

effemm wrote-



Now this is meant to give the impression that effemm is familiar with Ch 4 of Origins. He knows nobody has a copy and won't be bothered checking and thus he has the jump on you. And notice the unlovely language.

In Ch 4 Darwin states- " We see nothing of these small changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were."

Notice the "only see". That's it. effemm teleologises his ideas, or those he has read, to fill up the gaps.

Darwin also says in Ch 4- " Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life."

I presume Darwin knew what "infinite" meant. Beyond man's understanding is what "infinite" means. That is to say "irreducibly complex".

Then he says--" Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; "

Strange word is "strange". For a naturalist. It's like saying an alligator is strange because it doesn't look like the mother-in-law. Not in the evenings anyway.

And "endless", like "infinite" again introduces irreducible complexity which effemm is in denial off along with much else relating to emotions. And "peculiarities" is another peculiar word for things that exist in nature.

This is amateur science. Country parsonage nature studies with a net catching butterflies and pinning them in glass cases type of science. No dynamics of force and motion. No calculus. No art. Nothing remotely difficult.

And again--"We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical changes, for instance, of climate."

That really is amateurish. "Best understand the probable course" for instance. Why "best"? that's relative. Why "probable"? That's not definite.

And worst of all it takes no account that changes of climate are constant and ongoing and infinite and endless. No cosmic events are considered. Nor interconnections of food chains.

It's all oversimplified in order to give hoi polloi the idea that by "probably" "best understanding" it they have somehow got scientific credentials. Sucking off their egos in other words. Sells books dontchaknow?

And Darwin states in Ch 4 that the changes in the conditions of life, even his simple ones, act "specially" on the "reproductive system to cause variability". The gonads he means. Testicles and ovaries. Lingerie shops were unknown territory to him I think.

And he uses the word "cause" in the mundane sense like causing the light to come on when you flip the switch whereas "cause" in the infinite complexity of cosmic origins does not mean that at all. We don't even know what it does mean.

Also, Darwin says- "How low in the scale of nature this law of battle descends, I know not."

Apart from the snobbery of a well heeled gent who preferred being cooped up for five years with a prick like Fitzroy to running around with the county gals in his early twenties he has simple dismissed from sight about 99.9% of life's wonderful productions.

He talks of bees and flowers being modified for mutual independence in the same way one might talk about pubs situated near busy blast furnace operations being modified for mutual independence.

Most of the chapter is about plants. And it is well larded with "I thinks" and "I believe" and Mr Soandso" said and such like qualifiers which, if taken seriously, as any scientist would, render the whole thing a pile of meaningless tripe. Plausible if you want it to be. Going where the weather suits your clothes so to speak.

Would you buy an educational system off these plonkers.

Bringing up baby is a tricky business.

You may want to look up "irreducibly complex" Spendi. It doesn't mean the relations of all organic beings to each other are complex.

Chapter 4 is here for those that don't want to take Spendi's or FMs word on what it says.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html

Yeah, that was him fo sure.

Obviously.



I haven't offered any statements from authority on my part. I responded to three "points" which you offered. I responded to the first by pointing out that you had made a statement from authority, but for which you adduced no other authority than ipse dixit. I therefore pointed out that there is no reason to proceed to any questions you might ask based on a premise which there is no reason to accept, because it was one of the ex cathedra type of statements from authority, offering no substantiation.

Your second "point" about species "morphing," i answered in detail, pointing out the significance of morphology to Darwin and Wallace (which can be easily demonstrated through their writings), and the getting down to the specific case of teosinte/maize--and for that, i linked a source, and gave her credentials upon which her authority is based.

The third "point" you offered was so confused and rambling that i simply asked you if there were a question involved. You haven't answered.

This is not a case of competing statements from authority.



Something which, of course, you cannot know. I guess this is another example of what passes for humor at your house.



Nothing in what i wrote suggested that i were referring to exclusive behavior on anyone's part. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with questioning theories. There is something wrong with questioning anything from a position of ignorance, and the more so when one revels in the ignorance, and refuses to remedy the ignorance.



I don't know the Larry to whom you refer, so, of course, i can't form a reasonable judgment as to his relative happiness. I don't blame the creationists for moving on either. They proceed from a position of ignorance, relying rather upon blind faith than knowledge, and they arrive, sooner or later (and usually sooner rather than later) at an impasse created by their own unwillingness to discuss a theory of evolution in scientific terms, an unwillingness to remedy their ignorance, or to even use simple logic effectively.



Based on common English usage, i assume you are offering me an alcoholic beverage. I don't take strong drink. Neither do i take candy from strangers, nor accept the invitations of those who are complete strangers to me.

I assume, from parados placing Darwins chapt 4 (entitled "Natural Selection"), that someone (Spendi?) was in his normal contrarian mode. HAving the chapter available is good and gives Darwins thought process that constructed his concept of tiny changes compounded through time.
I have the VARIORUM text which also provides the changes that Darwin made to this chapter through the n6 editions of "The Origin..."
I dont want to be accused of cherry picking passages to make my point. Reading the entire chapter will provide illumination as to how DArwins thought process proceeded and thus answer blloydb's questions about how "nobody presents..."
Blloyds comments are typical of the Creationist attempts in composing scientific critique. They make bold statements that, if true, would be troubling to science (at least troubling in the sense that evidence would have to be rehashed over and over). BUT theyre not true, theyve been debunked by evidence and experiment and falsification and mutual support from other branches of science. However, since she apparently forsakes any reading that contains evidence counter to her beliefs, she relies merely upon enforeced ignorance to support her claims. Thus the statemenst that "nobody presents..." or "there are no intermediate ...". flow from her keyboard like water from a Missouri spring
We (most of us)rely on a bunch of people who will read and , if not understand, will ask questions from a position of being informed on both sides of the issues. I believe that everyone who supports evolutionary theory is way too familiar with all the arguments made by Creationists and IDers, however Im not sure that the familiarity is mutual from the Creationists. They keep repeating the same ignorant crap.
Bold assertions from points of ignorance is not a way to debate cause we have better things to do than keep drumming for scientific literacy. If the ignorant wish to remain ignorant, I suppose that theres no laws preventing them from pursuing their path.

The interesting thing about bloydbs statements are that, in light of the ritle of this entire thread, we have an example of this "lag". Ive yet to see any question shes asked or point mase that is specific to any portion of science or genetics. Her statement that the genome is "robust" is fairly self evident .BUT she seems to confuse robust with immutable. She ignores the fact that we can track somatic and genetic mutations almost like clockwork. We have the abilities to insert and morph entire sequences by "artificial means" we can create goats with spider web chemistry in their milk. Gotta tell ya, her level of discourse is not exactly enlightened and its tiring to rehash **** that has been hashed many times before.



PS bloydb---Youve purposely conflated the points that I made re: Sean Carroll. I suggest you read Chapter 1 of his book The Making of the Fittest. The chapter is entitled "The bloodless Fish of Bouvet Island' . Its fascinating

In a very nice book I'm reading, The Exploration of North America:1630-1776, the Jesuit missionary Father Jean de Brebeuf wrote in regard to the morals of the Huron tribe which knew nothing of the monotheism of Europe--



From that one might see just what fine Christian gentleman you all actually are. You simply reject the methods by which you have come to be different, or I hope so, from that Pagan world.

Later on there is this regarding New England's colonial leaders-



One might assume that those threatening religion are in favour of the destruction of the moral well-being of society.

Mr Obama yesterday stressed the maintenance of ideals over expedience and if he is correct in doing so his supporters have a duty to agree. Hence the "grasp of genetics and acceptance of evolution" ought to take second place to sound Christian moral grounding. (He wasn't bullshitting was he?)

Of course, I do understand that you have no idea about these matters and voted for mere sentimentalities.

I might add that I myself have the morals of an alley cat which is how I have come to understand the consequences when applied to 300, 000,000 souls. Moral persons, such as those on here attacking religion, cannot be expected to know all that much about these matters. They even have difficulty at the mention of them and likely blush to the roots of their being when hearing of even the more polite aspects of them.

It's a funny old world eh?

But those claiming the high intellectual ground who do not even know that they are a member of that large class of people "to whom it is done" are a joke.

Having been too lazy and/or incompetent to seek office and join the small class of those "who do" they are simply using science and Darwin as a vicarious power kick and a strategy to help repress the knowledge, which is obvious, that they are having it done to them which they don't like for narcissistic reasons traceable back to the formatives. (following Freud).

It wasn't sure if anyone posted this -- that survey and chart is now four years old, this one from Live Science is about a year old:

Survey: 61 Percent Agree with Evolution

By LiveScience Staff 02 January 2008

Americans would rather hear about evolution from scientists than from judges or celebrities, according to a new survey that finds a majority agree that evolution is at work among living things.

A coalition of 17 organizations reacted today to the survey by calling on the scientific community to become more involved in promoting evolution and other aspects of science education.

The coalition, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Physics and the National Science Teachers Association, released this statement:

"The introduction of 'non-science,' such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena."

Live Science link for balance of article:

http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html

I agree with evolution. So ******* what?

What? A sign of hope in the world? Maybe good news like this will usher in the end of the recession.

You can bet you last dollar that Wall Street traders not only agree with evolution but live its principles flat out.

Or maybe the end of days . . . when all them bible-thumpers experience the rapture, and Scotty beams 'em up to that big choir loft in the sky . . .



. . . i get first dibs on their SUVs . . .

Undoubtedly, they will leave them with empty gas tanks.

Cool!!!!!!!

"Peace will come on the wheels of fire."

Fantasists notwithstanding.