Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Anomie, please return because, my criticism was never meant to be personal. I was communicating my frustration of your rather convoluted and unnecessary application of "fine" writing. We arent presenting anything in a journal and the application of fine language actually destroys communication. You appear pompous in your writing and that focuses my attention at your style rather than any substance. I disagree mightily on your views of

Anti evolution,

use of normatives as a "norm"

Id be willing to battle these out with you but only if you open your language to easier interpretation. The use of several key words(like normative and heuriastic) makje me feel that you have a keyhole view from a social science POV. I come from a natural and physical science background (My advanced degrees are in Chemistry , and geology my BS Ba degrees are in Biochem and art). I love to engage in discussions re: scientific Heuristics, however, having been a teacher , I like to make sure that we understand the fundamentals of the search.

Hey ci. why have you not called Setanta a jerk? He too has mentioned his high IQ.

Well, I was really just being quip about how his statement may be true for science, while almost the opposite is true for politicians

It is an obvious and an essential aspect of the life in societies that concepts have a dual role. They serve to collect a variety of particular instances into them and they are also normative. The concept "gentleman" for example. It does not merely serve as a means of describing individual cases subsumed under the label but also and built into them by tradition a certain standard of what is a good gentleman.

Take "panties". That's a better example. Think of all the panties in the world. In boxes at the plant where panties are made. Large boxes in Chinese plants and smaller and more tastefully designed ones in Paris. Or at least in those parts of Paris where ground rents are high. In transit. In sheds. On trucks. In storerooms. On shelves. On display. Millions upon millions of them. It makes the mind boggle. I bet there's a million pairs whirling around in spin dryers right now.

But when we use the word there is a definite normative pressure to think of panties being worn at the time or shortly after being worn. Does any anti-IDer admit to thinking of panties in any of the locations the vast majority of panties are now positioned?

That's what Anomie is trying to say. My guess is that English is not his first language.

Most concepts are like this in ordinary life. Which Mr Popper self-evidently took a lot of notice of. They describe the general but with a normative implication. They classify and assess.

"Gentleman" and "panties" have a normative direction towards excellence. It is not easy to see how language can avoid this dual role for concepts. When one thinks "car" one thinks top of the range. "Pizza" --the perfect pizza. "Sex"--the earth moves.

The exceptions are things like ****, sluch and slop. Words that describe things not much approved of. But even then it is relative. One might be at the ladies nude mud-wrestling match for example in which case mud might have a good component for those who attend such events. Or been constipated for a week in which case I imagine **** to be the most wonderful thing in all the world.

The bird-flu virus has nothing good about it for anybody not professionally engaged in combat with it and even then only in a limited way. Although I suppose an evolutionist must of necessity hold that the strain that lays the most of us low is a paragon of excellence and demonstrates its capacity to resist everything science can throw at it and still come back stronger and sturdier than ever.

Is science the team coach of Virus International. To stand as reinforcement to the evolved immune system the weakening of which might be the doings of Science.

I don't know. I'm a bit thick. The simplest solution is no good. No jobs and careers in it.

Very well, though I would argue that my language aquisition is of autistic traits, hence atypical, or more specifically 'aspergers syndrome'.

Furthermore, what does my name suggest?

I deconstruct culture and linguistics by applying semantical interpretations and general formation rules.

This eliminates cognitive bias (the instrumental predicates), hence decreases the deviation of logical consistency.

For clarification, I am intrigued by the 'meaning' of words, not necessarily the syntax, and most certainly not the "style", however I do agree that destroying "communication" is a valid arguement.



Specifically, anti macro evolution of contemporary human culture, for at least the last 10000 years.

I argued that humans are not contempoparily subjected to macro selection pressure in order to satisfy the macro interpretation of 'speciation' by paleontologists.

There is selection pressure, however I am not convinced that humans will have any morphological variants is several million years, not even the sherpas, I believe that the deviation between races are in fact deviations prior to neolithic intervention, these allele variants are a misinterpretation of timing.

Furthermore, I argued that a geneticist interprets the members (micro/macro) of this continuum, holistically.

This is the disagreement, the semantics of science, you interpret the philosophical implications to be unecessary, or perhaps contingent.

Why do I disagree?

I argued that there is no intrinsic interpretation, scientifically, be it intrinsic human magnification, or that of 10^-6, or even 10^-100.

Are humans changing every millions of years, are human consistently changing in the cellular level; the hayflick limit, or telomerase depletion.

Or, are humans probabilities of particles at given point calculated by wave function?
Is the calculations of quantum mechanics more valid than the bionomial expansion of allele frequency?
What is the intrinsic interpretation of evolution?
Does this suggest the concept of evolution is not objectively true, being a subjective or relative human construct, convuluting a simple process of biological variation?

Evolution requires semantical truism, or it appears to be the case.

If the arguement is ressolved, we may argue:
"use of normatives as a 'norm'".

why Id like to see Anomie back is that he seems to have enetered this fray with clear directives that are quite diferent from his recent contributions

He joined us back while I was off the air for a month or so and I reread some of his discussion with Parados (which was good stuff on Parados behalf).
In that discussion series Anomie was a serial denier of several areas

1He was using the "It is only a theory argument" . Here he was aruguing the validity and observable nature of a LAW and a "lesser realm" occupied by theory or hypothesis. This of course os not corret



Anomie also was denying macro evolution (couldnt be pbserved and , even if it could be, we dont know what is a species).

Those are code arguments to me and I wanted to wxplore them further but it seems that ANomie has taken refuge in vague language rather than substantive argument.

Failures Art did have intriguing refutations, and as for Parados, I disagree.

Yes, I also distnguished the concept of a physical/scientific law, theory, hypothesis, and an empirical fact.

I also argued that axioms =/= physical laws, theorems =/= theories...ect

This is because physical quantities are acknowledged in science.

Also, where did I state "it is only a theory"?

This something I would most certainly not argue.

You will have to elaborate this:


What are these "code arguements", you simply need to request definitions for the "vague language", just as I do.

Wassa madder fm? My post too much for you?

Most people wouldn't know what Anomie is getting at so they also won't know what replies to his posts are getting at either. Which rather leaves out our increasing number of viewers and suggests that you see A2K as a cheap telephone connection to another person when it is actually a medium of entertainment relying on a certain degree of general popularity to attract paying advertisers and on this page directed at those with over $250,000 to invest. A sign that this is an "up there" thread and viewed by the better sort. Or that the stockbrokers concerned think it is. With their money where their mouth is.

Even a simple expression such as "therefore this is my final post" is difficult to understand. It's vagueness being in direct proportion to its substantive nature.

But it is painfully obvious why you cling to Anomie. He provides opportunities for you to evade answering my posts without anybody noticing your omissions. Except me of course. Why you wish to argue with vague language is your affair. Substantive arguments, such as one saying that Science is the team coach of Viral International, you avoid like a --well--a plague.

Set speaks his mind like I do; I don't always agree with him, and I'm sure he doesn't always agree with me. No need to challenge him most of the time, because he knows of what he speaks.

Unlike your posts, I learn stuff from Set. Your posts are irrelevant shite that goes nowhere, but fun to read for its poetry-like writing style - that is unique.

It is the reverse, for myself.

I do not understand why my language is "vague", yet not farmerman.

Using language, such as "pompous", attempting to define this is circular, meaning you will literally be replacing words in circles until you acknowledge that the basis of this meaning holds assumptions.

Only empathy sustains a consensus, in this case.

Perhaps my formal language is simply makes other humans feel insecure, therefore it is 'taboo'.

Hope this modified language is less "vague".

Also, remember that I am mildy autistic.

You wrote,

You're a pompous ass. I know many "smart" people, but none are like you!

When I suggested that my 'intelligent quotient' is abnormally high (measured by neuro science), my intensions were not of dominance, but to falsify assumptions of dyslexia.

It is no factor of contemporary definitions for intelligence, that is what I was attempting to suggest.

You may still be out performed by a dyslexic human.

Also, the language did appear 'hostile', however it was of relative standards for refutation.

Humans are more generally biased than I anticipated.

I guess they had to do something to distract from the "PRESS ARRESTED FOR VIOLATION OF LAWS"

No, people who have abnormally high intelligent quotient doesn't need to keep telling other people how smart they are. You show some insecurity in your character, but more obnoxious by the repetition.

Are you an alien from another planet?

I am accepting your statement that you have an abnormally high IQ. You should have no problem differentiating between theory and law in science.
A LAW is (simply stated) a scientific principle that can be stated by an equation. A theory is a body of evidence and data that fully explains a phenomenon and, in no data or evidence of the theory refutes the same phenomenon. Theories often contain laws in their body. (evolution has the Law of Superposition, Dollo's Law, and chemical laws of complexification and linkage, Snells law etc etc)

All data and evidence supports evolution and NO data or evidence refutes it.
Ernst Mayr said'Lets stop calling it a thewory and start calling it a fcat"

Stephen Gould said Evolution was a"theory and a fact" There is NO data or evidence that supports Creationism or Intelligent design. Its all done by an air of incredulity on evolution . That is not a snitch of evidence

No he's not - he's simply a profoundly neurologically ill individual who doesn't even grasp how delusional he is (as in when he claims to have trained in higher mathematics, an evident impossibility in his case). He makes me nauseous and he goes on ignore unless / until he apologizes for trying to fool posters here.

My votes still out. I think hes more possibly slightly autistic . I had a younger cousin who was focused on using a "special" group of words that he used over and over. He too had a very high IQ but, being somewhat autistic was unable to tie his own shoes. He became a high function geneticist who is involved in real cutting edge research. His mind is like a huuuuge hard drive wherein he can store and retrieve large masses of data to compare and assign to areas that are of interest to his research.His mind acts lkike one continuous complex linear equation solving machine. In that way Hes been able to pull apart genomes in his head and is specially interested in the myriads of "Bar code" insertions that occur in epigenes. Ive been watching him and Im always amazed at how he functions so well in one area and yet loses his way in another.
Lets give the guy a shot. Who the hell am I to be judgemental about this guy? I love to be around people waay smarter than me cause they help me shortcut things where I may spend untold amounts of time on a problem.
Sometimes Giotto didnt know **** about what he said, we often need to be more collaborative rather than ONLY function as isolated workers.

I have not heard the slightest hint that the Financial Times has been involved in phone and e-mail hacking. The FT possible has a vested interest in not being distracted from that matter. In which case it must consider the BOOM IN DISHONESTY even more important.

The definitions have already been acknowledged, though your conditons may be expanded.

I do not have faith the creationist or intelligent designs doctrines.

Furthermore, yes, I already acknowledge the "theory and fact" of evolution, however I would specifically refer to this as 'theory and empirical fact'.

Now, OUR dispute is the following, therefore I modify my language:
Are humans currently evolving?
Yes, we have agreed.

Is this gross evolutionary pressure?
No, I disagree.

Farmerman, can you convince me that humans are still being subjected to gross selection pressure, and convince me that the necessary operants for gross evolutionary phenomena are currently occuring?

How will this current selection pressure enable humans to have morphological changes in next 1000000 years.

The semantics are excluded, for now.