well, his *ideas* survived...

Nope.

Excellent piece. Everyone should read this. It certainly gives the talking points for dealing with students.

Guess I'll come back for the DT. Oh, well.

Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks, and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies. No one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith.

However, when it comes to the denial of evolution's evidence...

Before we get much further, let's keep in mind that evolution is a theory (a well supported one at that).

Darwinism is dead, and the science behind evolution continues to itself evolve as theories are refined, facts and data are collected, and no longer bears resemblance to what Darwin originally proffered.

This is not an attack on those with faith, but those who would rather use faith to supplant science.

That big beard of his was kinda stupid.

Does evolution / survival-of-the-fittest not apply to ideas?

When you apply the concept of survival of the fittest to *ideas*, you wonder how it is possible that centuries on, roughly 1B muslims still worship the words of an illiterate, murderous child molester.

That is a fine article.

re: #4 Cartman

Guess I'll come back for the DT. Oh, well.

far as i'm concerned this *is* the DT

re: #8 HelloDare

That big beard of his was kinda stupid.

Really! But I understand in his yout, he was quite the ladies man,

re: #7 buzzsawmonkey

The headline says, "Was Darwin Stupid?"

That's very different from asking whether he was wrong.

It is perfectly possible to be smart--indeed, brilliant--and still be wrong.Stupid

sorry buzz..my first strikeout..and i thought it was funny

re: #6 lawhawk

Before we get much further, let's keep in mind that evolution is a theory (a well supported one at that).

Darwinism is dead, and the science behind evolution continues to itself evolve as theories are refined, facts and data are collected, and no longer bears resemblance to what Darwin originally proffered.

This is not an attack on those with faith, but those who would rather use faith to supplant science.

The it's a theory line ( I know you didn't mean it that way) is about as pejorative as it gets. It intentionally mixes the common use of the word meaning anything someone might believe with the scientific use of the word.

A theory is a tested, falsifiable, predictive model of the natural world which has been through the rigors of multiple independent observation and is consistent with all other known observations. That is to say something that is true to the best that we can tell to a standard vastly more stringent than any court of law.

I'm sure that this has been said before here. I just wish that there was better teaching of what the word theory really means.

The same insight came independently to Alfred Russel Wallace, a young naturalist doing fieldwork in the Malay Archipelago during the late 1850s

This is the part that tends to get pushed to the wayside. Scientists were arriving at the same conclusions as Darwin independent of Darwin's research.

Creationists love to have a single person to blame for everything.
They figure if they could prove Darwin wrong, the whole theory would implode.

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

I mean it as you say - the scientific method, which is why I italicized it.

re: #14 LudwigVanQuixote

The I'm sure that this has been said before here. I just wish that there was better teaching of what the word theory really means.

i have a theory about why our schools let us down...

re: #6 lawhawk

Before we get much further, let's keep in mind that evolution is a theory (a well supported one at that).

Darwinism is dead, and the science behind evolution continues to itself evolve as theories are refined, facts and data are collected, and no longer bears resemblance to what Darwin originally proffered.

This is not an attack on those with faith, but those who would rather use faith to supplant science.

The scientific definition of a theory is far removed from the connotation ascribed to the word in common parlance:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

And, in fact, the basic constituents of evolutionary theory that Darwin proposed - random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection - are among the most valid, solid and grounded theoretical principles in science today.

Since you cite Olivia Judson's third post on evolutionary theory, I figured people might enjoy reading her fourth:

[Link: judson.blogs.nytimes.com...]

And yes, it has to do with one of Darwin's core assertions.

Even viruses belong to that continuum. Some viruses evolve quickly, some slowly. Among the fastest is HIV, because its method of replicating itself involves a high rate of mutation, and those mutations allow the virus to assume new forms.

So the evolutionists are trying to tell us that nature, not Jesus, is responsible for the HIV virus and it's on-going refinement? How can they live with such a bleak worldview?
/IDcreationist

re: #19 Jimmah

Read up on AIDS denialism- just stunning.

re: #9 noshariaincanada

Does evolution / survival-of-the-fittest not apply to ideas?

When you apply the concept of survival of the fittest to *ideas*, you wonder how it is possible that centuries on, roughly 1B muslims still worship the words of an illiterate, murderous child molester.

Because they enforce their propagation via violent coercion.

re: #9 noshariaincanada

Does evolution / survival-of-the-fittest not apply to ideas?

When you apply the concept of survival of the fittest to *ideas*, you wonder how it is possible that centuries on, roughly 1B muslims still worship the words of an illiterate, murderous child molester.

It is possible because wrong ideas can be 'right'. Right in the sense that they are successful in getting themselves replicated, regardless of their other merits.

Too... hard... to... resist...

Okay, natural selection works like wax pored through an intricate mold. Where'd the mold come from?

re: #20 buzzsawmonkey

You miss my point, I think. The National Geographic article asks whether or not Darwin was "wrong," which is a useful question. The headline here asks whether he was "stupid," which is asking a different, and much less useful, question. One can be stupid and be right, in certain instances, as one can be brilliant and yet be wrong, in certain instances.

I've known many brilliant people who were wrong about one thing or another. I've known a number of scientists who were wrong about one thing or another, despite their brilliance.

For the record, I don't think Darwin was "wrong." But whether he was or not, "stupid" he definitely wasn't.

Brother..I didn't miss your point.. I was just teasing you..
I just got home from my friends house and the funniest thing just happened..and i've got to wait a 100 posts to go off topic and tell the story..So i had to tweak the nose of a really good guy while i'm waiting..hehehehe

re: #8 HelloDare

That big beard of his was kinda stupid.

Robert Fitzroy was the captain of the Beagle who chose Darwin as a "civilian" to accompany him on the long 2nd voyage. At the age of 59, in a fit of depression, Fitzroy slit his own throat with a razor in 1865.

Guessing here, but Darwin's respect for Fitzroy may have somehow influenced the beard growth thing.

re: #23 Jimmah

It is possible because wrong ideas can be 'right'. Right in the sense that they are successful in getting themselves replicated, regardless of their other merits.

Yep; being correct, although generally a plus, is no guarantee of propagation for ideas; sometimes the simple lie is more appealing than the complex truth.

This field, btw, is known as memetics; it is simply evolutionary theory applied to the ecological niche behaviors of ideas within the cortical environments of human beings - how they evolve, propagate between minds, suffer extinction, etc.

re: #16 lawhawk

I mean it as you say - the scientific method, which is why I italicized it.

I thought that was the case. I just felt the need to vent about one of my biggest peeves from the ID crowd.

re: #23 Jimmah and also re: #22 Salamantis

It is possible because wrong ideas can be 'right'. Right in the sense that they are successful in getting themselves replicated, regardless of their other merits.

perhaps the right model for the spread of islam is something that falls into the realm of epidemiology.

re: #24 palarson

Too... hard... to... resist...

Okay, natural selection works like wax pored through an intricate mold. Where'd the mold come from?

Actually, the mold is the environmental niche and the wax is mutation. Only those bits of wax that fit the mold well enough to survive and reproduce there get to stick around in it, rather than falling by the wayside.

re: #21 Sharmuta

From Wiki -

Some denialist groups reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but argue that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS.

So, they'd be happy to infect themselves with this 'harmless virus' then? These folks are messed up.

re: #30 Salamantis

Actually, the mold is the environmental niche and the wax is mutation. Only those bits of wax that fit the mold well enough to survive and reproduce there get to stick around in it, rather than falling by the wayside.

So you agree?

Phil

I am an inventor of evolutionary computing algorithms that work very well, armed with only randomness and selection. They even exhibit punctuated evolution, where species "stick" for a long time, then make huge jumps to new levels.

Genetic evolution is an algorithm. I might suggest that God did create man, but not directly, instead God created an environment, a process, an algorithm by which man came forth. Evolution continues, too.

And when you look at the twinkling stars in the night sky, realize that randomness and selection pressure exists everywhere in the universe.

re: #27 Salamantis

Yep; being correct, although generally a plus, is no guarantee of propagation for ideas; sometimes the simple lie is more appealing than the complex truth.

This field, btw, is known as memetics; it is simply evolutionary theory applied to the ecological niche behaviors of ideas within the cortical environments of human beings - how they evolve, propagate between minds, suffer extinction, etc.

thanks for that definition, I was grasping for a concept that would capture what I was describing.

re: #9 noshariaincanada

Does evolution / survival-of-the-fittest not apply to ideas?

If ideas promote procreation regardless of circumstances, that in itself could be called an evolutionary trait, since it will tend to produce more of those raised with the same ideas, than others who may value other ideas higher.

Muslims certainly believe it is their duty to populate the earth, and they are pretty good at doing so, but there is another major religion that has about the same number of adherents and also has similar ideas about procreation (though not in most other areas), at least to the extent that preventing it is forbidden.

re: #30 Salamantis

Actually, the mold is the environmental niche and the wax is mutation. Only those bits of wax that fit the mold well enough to survive and reproduce there get to stick around in it, rather than falling by the wayside.

So you agree?

Phil

Agree with what? That there is random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, that is, evolution, going on? Most definitely. That some deific Molder moded the mold? Most definitely not. It just happened, based upon conditions that existed before, acted upon by *natural* (not supernatural) causality. But I know you'll try that watchmaker argument every chance you get, no matter how many times in the last century and a half it's been refuted.

re: #17 Capitalist Tool

i have a theory about why our schools let us down...

Me too! I have had college kids in my classes who thought that 3x5 would be different from 5x3. I have had kids who didn't know who won the Second World War. I have met a young woman who thought that it was impossible for them to get pregnant unless they prayed first for the blessing.

Then there is just what "average" mathematics and writing skills mean these days. Rather than bringing kids up, we simply dumbed things down. I worry that if a university has an "honors program" what does that say about the educational standard being given to the non honors program?

We need to have some proper standards that are enforced. We also need to hire about twice as many teachers for primary schools and double their salaries, to make the job attractive to more talented people. Given that we pay teachers in salt, this is a small investment with a large return.

Finally we need to have state laws that allow the schools to have a little bit of common sense. If Timmy's parents are offended by common sense then too bad. We shouldn't skimp on essential education because some twit on some fringe gets offended.

re: #27 Salamantis

One of the best ways in which a set of really lame ideas could grow in the human population despite their lameness would be if they were to be directly injected into minds that were too young to properly evaluate them, minds which are further instructed that evaluation of these particular ideas is off-limits, and that finding them less than impressive as a result of such an evaluation would incur eternal torment.

re: #36 Salamantis

Agree with what? That there is random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, that is, evolution, going on? Most definitely. That some deific Molder moded the mold? Most definitely not. It just happened, based upon conditions that existed before, acted upon by *natural* (not supernatural) causality. But I know you'll try that watchmaker argument every chance you get, no matter how many times in the last century and a half it's been refuted.

You went to far. My next point is merely that randomness is imaginary.

BTW: I once wrote a comparative memetic analysis of Islamofascism and Christian Fundamentalism, and what we can do, and are already doing, to counter the jihadists. It includes a description of the evolution of the Al Qaedan Wahhab/Qutb mutational variant of Islam against which we struggle.

It can be found here, for any who are interested:

Islamofascism vs. Christian Fundamentalism: Which is the Greater Threat?

[Link: blog.myspace.com...]

re: #39 palarson

You went to far. My next point is merely that randomness is imaginary.

But randomness, as far as population mutation is concerned, is far from imaginary.

It is environmental selection that is nonrandom.

Great show on the History Channel right now called "Evolve." This episode is about the evolution of the eye.

re: #37 LudwigVanQuixote

Finally we need to have state laws that allow the schools to have a little bit of common sense. If Timmy's parents are offended by common sense then too bad. We shouldn't skimp on essential education because some twit on some fringe gets offended.

Here in Florida we have an ex governor, Bush, who believes the solution is to take money from schools and give it to parents so they can send them to religious schools which, incidentally, don't have to satisfy the same standards as public schools.

He also has no problem "teaching the controversy". Go figure.

re: #37 LudwigVanQuixote

Me too! I have had college kids in my classes who thought that 3x5 would be different from 5x3. I have had kids who didn't know who won the Second World War. I have met a young woman who thought that it was impossible for them to get pregnant unless they prayed first for the blessing.

Then there is just what "average" mathematics and writing skills mean these days. Rather than bringing kids up, we simply dumbed things down. I worry that if a university has an "honors program" what does that say about the educational standard being given to the non honors program?

We need to have some proper standards that are enforced. We also need to hire about twice as many teachers for primary schools and double their salaries, to make the job attractive to more talented people. Given that we pay teachers in salt, this is a small investment with a large return.

Finally we need to have state laws that allow the schools to have a little bit of common sense. If Timmy's parents are offended by common sense then too bad. We shouldn't skimp on essential education because some twit on some fringe gets offended.

There are two extreme interest groups in education that get all of the attention. Those that want kids to memorize facts and regurgitate them and those that want to children to feel good about learning whatever it is they feel like learning.

I don't agree with either of these viewpoints. I would love to see more critical thinking going on in classrooms. For example, requiring students to solve math and science problems in varying contexts rather than in isolation - thereby demonstrating that they have depth of knowledge rather than just a basic understanding.

Thanks Charles -- I was wondering if we were ever gonna hear from Sal.
Pretty son kulwhch and mfarmer will be here and it'll be like old times.

re: #43 patrickafir

Great show on the History Channel right now called "Evolve." This episode is about the evolution of the eye.

Thanks. I am recording it.

re: #46 least

Thanks Charles -- I was wondering if we were ever gonna hear from Sal.
Pretty son kulwhch and mfarmer will be here and it'll be like old times.

Truly you are the 'least of these my brethren'...

re: #34 noshariaincanada

Daniel Dennet has a stunning analogy between radical Islam and a parasitic fluke that infects an ant and makes it sacrifice its own life.

Here's the (threadworthy, IMO) video:

Ants, terrorism and the awesome power of memes

re: #41 Salamantis

But randomness, as far as population mutation is concerned, is far from imaginary.

You call it God's will and I'll call even.

re: #41 Salamantis

But randomness, as far as population mutation is concerned, is far from imaginary.

You call it God's will and I'll call even.

So for you God = Randomness? That's a strange definition. Randomness possesses neither consciousness nor will. Whatever just happens to happen, however good or evil it might be in human terms, would have to be ascribed to it. Such a definition would make of God the Absurd and Unconscious Amoral Emperor of Good and Evil.

Genexer- I just want you to know I'm going through and dinging everything you've dinged in the opposite direction- well- except one.

re: #50 palarson

Intelligent randomness?

Marvo is being shy tonight, so here's the link about the dino+human footprint fossil posted back in the Tuesday afternoon thread:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
I find it odd that an avid collector of artifacts waited 8 years to clean off what should have been the centerpiece of his collection.

re: #45 gman

There are two extreme interest groups in education that get all of the attention. Those that want kids to memorize facts and regurgitate them and those that want to children to feel good about learning whatever it is they feel like learning.

I don't agree with either of these viewpoints. I would love to see more critical thinking going on in classrooms. For example, requiring students to solve math and science problems in varying contexts rather than in isolation - thereby demonstrating that they have depth of knowledge rather than just a basic understanding.

Well said. As to science teaching, I've had about 6,000 kids go through the various physics classes I've been in front of so far.

The issue comes down mostly to getting people to think in terms of process, story and concept.

What I mean by that is that for most people an equation is this thing to be manipulated or to have numbers plugged into. The connection that it is trying to tell you a story about how things work is rarely made because we rarely have science teachers in the primary phase who try to explain things in those terms. To make such a connection, the math must always be tied back conceptually to the real world.

The equations come from somewhere. There are reasons that they are the way they are. Most people are never taught to wonder about such things. They are too busy being rewarded for memorizing more equations that came deus ex machina.

We need to get them early and see to it that they understand the story.

A great example is the following question. It's one I give all my kids.

Imagine you had to teach physics 101.

A student comes to you and asks the following:

"I understand that F=ma. I understand that there are equal and opposite forces, like the Earth pushes up on me exactly as hard as I push down on it. The two forces cancel or I would go through the ground. But if that is true, and the force from my feet is always canceled by the force from the Earth, how could I ever jump up?"

How would you answer this student's question?

Note: saying something like my legs push me and leaving it at that does not count.

My point is that the math here is only the most basic algebra. There is no issue in being able to the math. What makes the question tricky and important is it directly probes if you understand what the math is telling you. If you build up that kind of understanding in the students everything becomes more clear. Rather than memorizing dozens of formulae for exams, they go in armed with the principles and derive things as they need them.

Oh and any lizard who gets it is invited to a scotch with me...

Hmmmm. Oh well.

A missing link?

re: #36 Salamantis

Agree with what? That there is random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, that is, evolution, going on? Most definitely. That some deific Molder moded the mold? Most definitely not.

I think that falls short a bit. You mention only random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, but I would add there are also environmental mutations. In fact I'd guess most random mutations are reactions to environmental conditions. Occam's razor doesn't like random so much.

re: #39 palarson

You went to far. My next point is merely that randomness is imaginary.

That's a relief. I've been wracking my brains trying to figure out a way to sue all those Vegas casinos that took my money. Luck of the draw (randomness) is imaginary, that's the ticket!
//

re: #37 LudwigVanQuixote

I have had college kids in my classes who thought that 3x5 would be different from 5x3. I have had kids who didn't know who won the Second World War. I have met a young woman who thought that it was impossible for them to get pregnant unless they prayed first for the blessing. Then there is just what "average" mathematics and writing skills mean these days. Rather than bringing kids up, we simply dumbed things down.

Your hard earned tax dollars at work in the once-great public school system. Strangely enough, the more it gets centralized, the more the educrat population increases and the dumber the kids get.

We need to have some proper standards that are enforced.

Try telling that to the NEA. Good luck.

We also need to hire about twice as many teachers for primary schools and double their salaries, to make the job attractive to more talented people.

You can start by abolishing the educacracy - the enormous layer of nearly pure fat that draws sustenance from the taxpayer teat and insulates students from a decent education

Finally we need to have state laws that allow the schools to have a little bit of common sense.

Then we need toelect intelligent state legislators who will return the American public school system to the sound institution it once was.

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I would answer it in this way:

"the force from my feet is always canceled by the force from the Earth" This is actually an incorrect assumption. The force from the earth is pretty much a constant. When you jump up, you are momentarily applying a greater force then the earth is. You come back down because you are no longer applying that force that caused you to leave the ground.

Did I pass? ;>

re: #38 Jimmah

One of the best ways in which a set of really lame ideas could grow in the human population despite their lameness would be if they were to be directly injected into minds that were too young to properly evaluate them, minds which are further instructed that evaluation of these particular ideas is off-limits, and that finding them less than impressive as a result of such an evaluation would incur eternal torment.

An excellent summary of public school education in the hands of liberals. What they have done to the humanities is criminal: revised history, politically-correct civics, failed theories of grammar and composition, no geography and Al Gore's egregiously mendacious motion picture fobbed off to students in science classes.

re: #51 Salamantis

So for you God = Randomness? That's a strange definition. Randomness possesses neither consciousness nor will. Whatever just happens to happen, however good or evil it might be in human terms, would have to be ascribed to it. Such a definition would make of God the Absurd and Unconscious Amoral Emperor of Good and Evil.

I'm guessing the thought's not clear enough for you to understand, but their is no such thing as a random event. Presuming you'd argue quantum theory argues the other way, I'd remind you that Einstien spent his life disagreeing.

I'm satisfied good mathematics exploring the mutation rates and probabilities will speak for themselves in negating the validity of your idea of random mutation, and I'll satisfy myself to hear you point to the evidence to defend your perceived reality as proof the mathematics are invalid. At this point I'll help you out by reminding you of "Gods mold" theory.

re: #59 Mich-again

I think that falls short a bit. You mention only random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, but I would add there are also environmental mutations. In fact I'd guess most random mutations are reactions to environmental conditions. Occam's razor doesn't like random so much.

Well, a rapid change in the environment can cause stressors upon the population that can result in more mutations, but you don't have a greater percentage of this increased number of mutations being adaptationist to a hotter environment simply because the average ambient temperature has risen a dozen degrees; instead, you have those mutations that are more tolerant of a hotter environment giving their hosts a better chance to survive and reproduce.

re: #62 Fried Spam

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I would answer it in this way:

"the force from my feet is always canceled by the force from the Earth" This is actually an incorrect assumption. The force from the earth is pretty much a constant. When you jump up, you are momentarily applying a greater force then the earth is. You come back down because you are no longer applying that force that caused you to leave the ground.

Did I pass? ;>

No scotch yet... but a really good start

Yes, you must over come gravity ( at least temporarily) to jump up. From that you can conclude that your legs must be outputting more force than the Earth's pull on you.

But the question is looking at the other end of the problem. The Earth is certainly pulling you down, but it also holds you up. You don't sink through the floor. The real problem is, if the Earth is holding me up, the force of it holding me up must completely cancel the amount it pulls me down. If I press on the floor, and the floor does not move, then even if I press harder, those two forces are canceled. If, when I jump, my feet never go through the floor, then the force between my feet and the floor was always canceled. It pushed up as hard as I pushed down. If that is the case, how did I go up?

Next time one of the anti-evolutionists wants to bring up the dino-tissue:

Scientists question dinosaur soft tissue find

Soft tissue taken from preserved dinosaur bones may not be dinosaur protein at all, but bacteria, paleontologists said on Tuesday.

Dinosaur experts made headlines around the world when they found what appeared to be soft tissue in a broken Tyrannosaurus rex thighbone.

But paleontologist Thomas Kaye of the University of Washington in Seattle challenges this idea and says he has seen similar structures and shown them to be bacteria. Specifically, he said, the structures look like bacterial biofilm, a slimy substance that the microbes often form.

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

Well said. As to science teaching, I've had about 6,000 kids go through the various physics classes I've been in front of so far.

The issue comes down mostly to getting people to think in terms of process, story and concept.

What I mean by that is that for most people an equation is this thing to be manipulated or to have numbers plugged into. The connection that it is trying to tell you a story about how things work is rarely made because we rarely have science teachers in the primary phase who try to explain things in those terms. To make such a connection, the math must always be tied back conceptually to the real world.

The equations come from somewhere. There are reasons that they are the way they are. Most people are never taught to wonder about such things. They are too busy being rewarded for memorizing more equations that came deus ex machina.

We need to get them early and see to it that they understand the story.

A great example is the following question. It's one I give all my kids.

Imagine you had to teach physics 101.

A student comes to you and asks the following:

"I understand that F=ma. I understand that there are equal and opposite forces, like the Earth pushes up on me exactly as hard as I push down on it. The two forces cancel or I would go through the ground. But if that is true, and the force from my feet is always canceled by the force from the Earth, how could I ever jump up?"

How would you answer this student's question?

Note: saying something like my legs push me and leaving it at that does not count.

My point is that the math here is only the most basic algebra. There is no issue in being able to the math. What makes the question tricky and important is it directly probes if you understand what the math is telling you. If you build up that kind of understanding in the students everything becomes more clear. Rather than memorizing dozens of formulae for exams, they go in armed with the principles and derive things as they need them.

Schools would change tremendously if we began emphasizing the story, process, and concept as you mentioned above.

Young people coming out of school are heading into the big bad world where they have to "apply" all of those algorithms and theories they learned.
Problem is they don't know how to begin the process of applying their learning to different situations. It's a shame we are wasting our young people's school years on shoddy instructional methods when we know better and have the capacity to do better.

re: #65 Salamantis

Well, a rapid change in the environment can cause stressors upon the population that can result in more mutations

In my experience, a shift in the environment changes the selection pressure, rather than the mutation rate.

re: #64 palarson

I'm guessing the thought's not clear enough for you to understand, but their is no such thing as a random event. Presuming you'd argue quantum theory argues the other way, I'd remind you that Einstien spent his life disagreeing.

And being proven wrong by the overwhelming preponderance of subsequent theoretical physics.

I'm satisfied good mathematics exploring the mutation rates and probabilities will speak for themselves in negating the validity of your idea of random mutation, and I'll satisfy myself to hear you point to the evidence to defend your perceived reality as proof the mathematics are invalid. At this point I'll help you out by reminding you of "Gods mold" theory.

Such 'good mathematics' does not exist, and in fact when you get down to what causes most mutations in DNA (ambient radiation), it acts quite randomly, knocking awry those base pairs that the radiating particles just happen to smack into - it's just as random as are quantum fluctuation and Brownian motion. But since you are quite certain that there is no wiggle room whatsoever in anything, please demonstrate to Werner Heisenberg how his Uncertainty Principle is fatally flawed by precisely and simultaneously measuring the location and the momentum of an electron.

Please also remember that statistical probabilities themselves are measurements of the degrees of uncertainty involved in the aggregates under consideration, and that their means are the degrees to which these calculations themselves are uncertain, i.e. could be off. If there were no such thing as individual randomness, there would be no such mathematics as statistics, since everything that could be measured would have either a probability of 0 or a probability of 1.

re: #67 Sharmuta

Next time one of the anti-evolutionists wants to bring up the dino-tissue:

Scientists question dinosaur soft tissue find

This is also a great example of how scientists fact check themselves.

re: #66 LudwigVanQuixote

No scotch yet... but a really good start

Yes, you must over come gravity ( at least temporarily) to jump up. From that you can conclude that your legs must be outputting more force than the Earth's pull on you.

Note, I shouldn't be doing this in professor mode.... You can conclude that your legs are outputting more than the Earth's pull is a bit of a trick statement. You could conclude that, but you might be incorrect if you did.

re: #66 LudwigVanQuixote

No scotch yet... but a really good start

Yes, you must over come gravity ( at least temporarily) to jump up. From that you can conclude that your legs must be outputting more force than the Earth's pull on you.

But the question is looking at the other end of the problem. The Earth is certainly pulling you down, but it also holds you up. You don't sink through the floor. The real problem is, if the Earth is holding me up, the force of it holding me up must completely cancel the amount it pulls me down. If I press on the floor, and the floor does not move, then even if I press harder, those two forces are canceled. If, when I jump, my feet never go through the floor, then the force between my feet and the floor was always canceled. It pushed up as hard as I pushed down. If that is the case, how did I go up?

You go up because your leg muscles have used their leverage against the ground to momentarily propel your body upwards at a speed exceeding the speed at which gravity pulls you down (32fps²), and your feet follow the rest of your body up.

their is no such thing as a random event.

This is an accurate statement if one were omniscient (all-knowing). Randomness is a manifestation of our ignorance.

Well, that's not quite correct; your leg muscles propel your body upward by overcoming the degree of gravitational pull; this is not to say that you are propelled upwards at a speed exceeding gravity, but that your propulsory coefficient minus the pull rate of gravity is greater than zero.

re: #64 palarson

I'm guessing the thought's not clear enough for you to understand, but their is no such thing as a random event. Presuming you'd argue quantum theory argues the other way, I'd remind you that Einstien spent his life disagreeing.

And this was Einsteins greatest failure. He was wrong about QM.

Have you ever heard of Bell's Theorem. I want you to note it is a theorem not a theory. That means it is a mathematical statement with a mathematical proof. In other words, if the math was correct, it can not be any other way.

What Bell's theorem says in a nut shell, is that there must be true randomness at the core of quantum mechanics. If there were any sort of "hidden variable" then the distributions predicted (and observed by the theory) would have to come out differently then they do.

In other words, you must live with true randomness on the quantum level. G-d not only throws dice at that level, but He throws them where we can not see them.

re: #74 Max Darkside

This is an accurate statement if one were omniscient (all-knowing). Randomness is a manifestation of our ignorance.

Actually, no. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and quantum mechanics in general, demonstrate that many things are essentially, inherently random.

re: #73 Salamantis

You go up because your leg muscles have used their leverage against the ground to momentarily propel your body upwards at a speed exceeding the speed at which gravity pulls you down (32fps²), and your feet follow the rest of your body up.

Wow... getting there. You have 1/2 of the answer. I should note that 32 ft/sec ^2 is an acceleration and not a speed.

What about the Earth? What is it doing?

re: #74 Max Darkside

This is an accurate statement if one were omniscient (all-knowing). Randomness is a manifestation of our ignorance.

Well said. This is precisely why a theist should have no real problem with our perception of randomness.

Random is defined as something unpredictable. In other words, something in the future that can not be determined until it happens.

G-d knows the future. By definition, nothing is random to Him even if it is completely random to us.

re: #77 Salamantis

Actually, no. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and quantum mechanics in general, demonstrate that many things are essentially, inherently random.

Having a degree that includes the study of same (P-Chem), I have to disagree. The uncertainty is because we are ignorant of the mechanisms and thus cannot predict.

It's okay if we disagree. That is how we all mate, mutate and determine the fitness of our memes. .

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

"I understand that F=ma. I understand that there are equal and opposite forces, like the Earth pushes up on me exactly as hard as I push down on it.

If the earth pushes up more than I weigh.............................what happens?

re: #79 LudwigVanQuixote

Random is defined as something unpredictable. In other words, something in the future that can not be determined until it happens.

Because we don't know the mechanisms / have inadequate models. I work with randomness as my livelihood. It is how I make my house payment and feed and clothe my family. In that regard, randomness is very useful. (hahaha....)

re: #81 Naso Tang

If the earth pushes up more than I weigh.............................what happens?

If it did, you would start to move away from the Earth. But people do not start to spontaneously float away. Also, you would not just float up, you would keep accelerating as long as the pushing up was bigger than gravity.

re: #82 Max Darkside

Day trader huh?

re: #78 LudwigVanQuixote

Wow... getting there. You have 1/2 of the answer. I should note that 32 ft/sec ^2 is an acceleration and not a speed.

What about the Earth? What is it doing?

It is traveling in the opposite direction, the one in which it has been pushed by our leg muscles, but since 6.6 sextillion tons is so much greater than our own body weight and thus its vector changes so much less in response to our leg muscle force coefficient, it only does so to an infinitesimal degree.

The same principle is observed when one observes that the earth is not circling the sun, but rather, they are revolving around each other; it's just that the much more massive sun describes a much smaller revolutionary circle (of course I'm not factoring in the other planets here).

re: #80 Max Darkside

Having a degree that includes the study of same (P-Chem), I have to disagree. The uncertainty is because we are ignorant of the mechanisms and thus cannot predict.

It's okay if we disagree. That is how we all mate, mutate and determine the fitness of our memes. .

You can disagree, but your degree is in chemisty, and not in physics, so your disagreement does not overwhelm the considered consensus of the planet's physicists on the issue.

I might add that determinism is anti-randomness. That is why computers are so poor at random number generation. They are a fully determined system. Randomness can only occur when the algorithm is sufficiently complex that our models cannot explain the cause. Then and only then do they appear random.

The financial markets are not random, they just look to be due to the sheer complexity, but there is a cause behind every trade. If you can at least adequately model the causation, you make a lot of money.

re: #84 Naso Tang

Day trader huh?

No, but I do sell quite successful "randomness reduction" software to them. I also sell it to most every major corporation on the planet. Something around you has been touched by me, indirectly.

re: #78 LudwigVanQuixote

Equal and opposite reaction. It's just that the earth weighs so much more, its opposite movement is undetectable.

Do I get the scotch yet? ;>

re: #82 Max Darkside

Because we don't know the mechanisms / have inadequate models. I work with randomness as my livelihood. It is how I make my house payment and feed and clothe my family. In that regard, randomness is very useful. (hahaha....)

There is a difference between perceived randomness and actual randomness. The difference is very important in QM.

Perceived randomness is something like flipping a coin. I agree that if I knew exactly how hard the coin was hit, exactly where it was hit, the exact conditions of the room and the floor etc... I would be able to predict if it would land on one side or the other. Since we don't know all of those factors, we are left with an unknown outcome. This is perceived randomness.

Actual randomness is something that could not be predicted even in principle, where the universe itself puts a fundamental limit on what could possibly be known. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is one such manifestation of such randomness. But that is only something derived from the structure of the wave equation. The very nature of the Copenhagen Interpretation makes the wave equation itself a probabilistic entity.

Bell's Theorem guarantees that there can be no hidden variable to make that probability space go away.

re: #86 Salamantis

You can disagree, but your degree is in chemisty, and not in physics, so your disagreement does not overwhelm the considered consensus of the planet's physicists on the issue.

No, my degree is not in chemistry. A majority of people on this planet are surrounded by randomness because they don't understand the systems they are working with. The quest of the physicist is to understand, to reduce that randomness they perceive. I dare say they are physicists *because* they see the randomness and are trying to figure out better models to reduce it.

re: #38 Jimmah

One of the best ways in which a set of really lame ideas could grow in the human population despite their lameness would be if they were to be directly injected into minds that were too young to properly evaluate them, minds which are further instructed that evaluation of these particular ideas is off-limits, and that finding them less than impressive as a result of such an evaluation would incur eternal torment.

Sort of a "give them to us until they're five and they're ours for the rest of their lives" sorta thing, huh?

}:)     [Kinder, gentler Kulhwch says, "Hmmmm.  What about that?"]

The Santa Fe Institute includes some complexity theorists who have been modeling the stock market as a complex system. Their deep predictions have been quite consistently on the mark.

Man, getting into the thread before it's halfway to the moon makes all the difference.  I'll fall behind in this one, too, but at least I'll get a better ride ...

}:)     [And the ride's the thing, no?]

re: #90 LudwigVanQuixote

There is a difference between perceived randomness and actual randomness. The difference is very important in QM..

All they are saying is there will alway be randomness. It is not possible to be omniscient. Duh.

re: #83 LudwigVanQuixote

If it did, you would start to move away from the Earth. But people do not start to spontaneously float away. Also, you would not just float up, you would keep accelerating as long as the pushing up was bigger than gravity.

I was trying to be clever by being brief.

One changes the equilibrium of standing (weight canceled) by flexing muscles to add a reactive force greater than one's weight, imparting an upward acceleration for a short finite time, resulting in a specific initial velocity upwards at the end of the acceleration, which will immediately start to decelerate due to gravity, eventually resulting in a reversed velocity and a sharp deceleration of the same magnitude, resulting in the initial state of equilibrium, except for the release of an amount of heat corresponding to the energy in the initial mass acceleration.

I was trying to see how long I could make it this time, but I ran out of time.

re: #91 Max Darkside

No, my degree is not in chemistry. A majority of people on this planet are surrounded by randomness because they don't understand the systems they are working with. The quest of the physicist is to understand, to reduce that randomness they perceive. I dare say they are physicists *because* they see the randomness and are trying to figure out better models to reduce it.

So whatever your degree is in simply included taking a course in physical chemistry (P-Chem); right? Then what is your degree in, if you don't mind me asking?

And of course, p-chem is not the same as organic chem or genetics, where such things as random mutations are subjects of particular study.

re: #79 LudwigVanQuixote

Random is defined as something unpredictable. In other words, something in the future that can not be determined until it happens.

G-d knows the future. By definition, nothing is random to Him even if it is completely random to us.

I disgree. If God can see the future as we can see the past then he isn't predicting what will happen in the future, he is recollecting it. Since hidden variables have been ruled out in QM, even God wouldn't be able to truly predict the precise moment of say, a spontaneous nuclear disintegration.

re: #54 jaunte

Marvo is being shy tonight, so here's the link about the dino+human footprint fossil posted back in the Tuesday afternoon thread:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
I find it odd that an avid collector of artifacts waited 8 years to clean off what should have been the centerpiece of his collection.

HOLY PALUXY MAN TRACKS ...

}:P     [ ... BATMAN!]

re: #95 Max Darkside

All they are saying is there will alway be randomness. It is not possible to be omniscient. Duh.

Yep. They're saying that if omniscience means being able to breach the Uncertainty Principle, even God could not be omniscient, on principle.

re: #88 Max Darkside

No, but I do sell quite successful "randomness reduction" software to them. I also sell it to most every major corporation on the planet. Something around you has been touched by me, indirectly.

That's cool. I used to use random engines in programs once, doing stuff like Monte Carlo simulations, and occassionally for simple applications would just program some modulo this or that hash number.

However, I'm interested in how you sell the fact that what you provide is truly random, or more to the point, would your clients really know the difference? ;)

re: #97 Salamantis

So whatever your degree is in simply included taking a course in physical chemistry (P-Chem); right? Then what is your degree in, if you don't mind me asking?

And of course, p-chem is not the same as organic chem or genetics, where such things as random mutations are subjects of particular study.

I have had all the organic chem (spit) courses offered, possible (blah). Toughest damn stuff there is, I think. Sure, write for me the synthesis of 2,2,4 Trimethyl pentane from methane and h-nu. HA! Average damn exam was about 20%. Glad they graded on a curve. and I've had Nuclear Engineering and Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering and, crap I'm tired just thinking about it.

I'm a Chemical Engineer, by education The highest paid degree in the world, with 100% placement when I graduated.

I present a link to a talk given by He Whom Creationists Regard As The Devil, explaining the whys and wherefores of his Dark Allegiance to Atheism:

Just figured I'd hava li'l fun and piss off the usual suspects...;~)

re: #101 Naso Tang

However, I'm interested in how you sell the fact that what you provide is truly random, or more to the point, would your clients really know the difference? ;)

Ha! I don't sell randomness... I use randomness to reduce randomness! Paradoxical, I know, but quite true. I have 10's of thousands of customers.

re: #65 Salamantis

Well, a rapid change in the environment can cause stressors upon the population that can result in more mutations, but you don't have a greater percentage of this increased number of mutations being adaptationist to a hotter environment simply because the average ambient temperature has risen a dozen degrees; instead, you have those mutations that are more tolerant of a hotter environment giving their hosts a better chance to survive and reproduce.

As complicated as that sounds I think its too simple an explanation. Again you reinforce that mutations are random. I say no. Mutations are results of environmental stressors. Chemical reactions happen for a reason.

re: #89 Fried Spam

Equal and opposite reaction. It's just that the earth weighs so much more, its opposite movement is undetectable.

Do I get the scotch yet? ;>

I'll give both you and Sal a scotch. If you are ever in the DC area, I'll hook you up.

The full answer goes like this:

Consider rewriting f=ma as f/m=a. You immediately see that if you apply the same force on something more massive, it will have a lower acceleration than something less massive. This is because dividing by a big number leaves you with a very small number.

But that also means that if I see a mass accelerating, there must be a force on it.

So what happens as I jump, what is the mechanism?

Imagine your upper body is a like block, and your legs are like a coiled spring. The spring is pushing on the Earth. At no point do my feet ever go through the ground. They never accelerate past the Earth. That means that for the entire jump the forces between my feet and the Earth canceled out.

But what as the spring releases (same thing as my leg muscles doing their thing) I am pushing on the upper part of my body. I push hard enough to start accelerating my upper body upwards. This takes energy to do, it was stored in my legs, and as I transfer the potential energy in my legs into kinetic energy in my upper body, my upper body eventually gains enough upward momentum to lift everything even my feet up.

Now here is where it all comes together. Again at no point did my legs push harder on my upper body then they did on the Earth. Always there are equal and opposite forces. However, there is only one amount of force coming out of my legs. It's effect on my upper body is enough to launch me. The mass of my upper body is pretty small. That force divided by that mass gives a noticable acceleration. On the other hand, that same force divided by the mass of the Earth gives an acceleration so close to zero it might as well be zero.

re: #103 Salamantis

Aah...His Satanic Majesty...how...excellent.

;)

re: #98 Jimmah

I disgree. If God can see the future as we can see the past then he isn't predicting what will happen in the future, he is recollecting it. Since hidden variables have been ruled out in QM, even God wouldn't be able to truly predict the precise moment of say, a spontaneous nuclear disintegration.

Philosophically it seems nonsensical to say that anything can exist knowing literally everything about its own future. At what point in time would it be contemplating the next moment in time, without already having contemplated it?

Boring.

re: #105 Mich-again

As complicated as that sounds I think its too simple an explanation. Again you reinforce that mutations are random. I say no. Mutations are results of environmental stressors. Chemical reactions happen for a reason.

Isn't one of the main 'stressors' background radiation? Random enough, no?

re: #98 Jimmah

I disgree. If God can see the future as we can see the past then he isn't predicting what will happen in the future, he is recollecting it. Since hidden variables have been ruled out in QM, even God wouldn't be able to truly predict the precise moment of say, a spontaneous nuclear disintegration.

I am sorry I do not understand. If G-d is recollecting our future as His past, then how is it possible that He couldn't know the point in His past when there was a disintegration, or any other thing, that hasn't happened to us yet?

re: #103 Salamantis

Just figured I'd hava li'l fun and piss off the usual suspects...;~)

You've been hanging around with a bad crowd again ...

}:)     [ ... bless you ... listening to it right now.]

re: #109 Jimmah

Isn't one of the main 'stressors' background radiation? Random enough, no?

Yes I would say radiation is random, but because it would affect all the like creatures nearby, it would by definition be environmental.

re: #102 Max Darkside

I have had all the organic chem (spit) courses offered, possible (blah). Toughest damn stuff there is, I think. Sure, write for me the synthesis of 2,2,4 Trimethyl pentane from methane and h-nu. HA! Average damn exam was about 20%. Glad they graded on a curve. and I've had Nuclear Engineering and Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering and, crap I'm tired just thinking about it.

I'm a Chemical Engineer, by education The highest paid degree in the world, with 100% placement when I graduated.

Okay...you're into application rather than theory. You're right; that's where the big bucks are. My late big brother made those kinda bucks running the nuts and bolts of an oil refinery in Louisiana. Of course, those fieldwork folks hadda be in constant touch with the central office, so they employed the newest, cutting edge comm. technology, as soon as it came out, and damn the cost.

He began using the big clunky cellphones when they hadda be hauled around in suitcases with big batteries and wall socket plug-ins, and the radiation levels were much higher. Several years ago, he developed splitting headaches; they found an aggressive brain tumor located just behind his left ear. Three months later, he was gone.

re: #104 Max Darkside

Ha! I don't sell randomness... I use randomness to reduce randomness! Paradoxical, I know, but quite true. I have 10's of thousands of customers.

Well, you have me puzzled. I too can create a random reducing engine that is guaranteed to ensure that 2+2 will always equal 4, no random mistakes allowed. Should I guess that what you do is more akin to determining if something is random or not?

re: #98 Jimmah

I disgree. If God can see the future as we can see the past then he isn't predicting what will happen in the future, he is recollecting it. Since hidden variables have been ruled out in QM, even God wouldn't be able to truly predict the precise moment of say, a spontaneous nuclear disintegration.

So while sitting atop a skyscraper you see two cars approaching an intersection at a high speed and you know they will soon collide. Did you cause the accident?

re: #105 Mich-again

As complicated as that sounds I think its too simple an explanation. Again you reinforce that mutations are random. I say no. Mutations are results of environmental stressors. Chemical reactions happen for a reason.

But the stressors cannot dictate what kind of mutations arise. You are confusing levels here. Physical exigencies cannot decode or decipher informational configurations, which is what DNA sequences are, to decide which ones to select to mutate and in which direction. Physical exigencies are blind and mindless.

re: #108 Naso Tang

Philosophically it seems nonsensical to say that anything can exist knowing literally everything about its own future. At what point in time would it be contemplating the next moment in time, without already having contemplated it?

Boring.

I agree. Consciousness seems to imply change in content over time - this wouldn't be possible for a God. I was just assuming the possibility of such a being for the sake of argument ;)

re: #113 Salamantis

Several years ago, he developed splitting headaches; they found an aggressive brain tumor located just behind his left ear. Three months later, he was gone.

}:/     [Condolences ... ]

re: #115 Mich-again

So while sitting atop a skyscraper you see two cars approaching an intersection at a high speed and you know they will soon collide. Did you cause the accident?

You did if you're responsible for yourself, the skyscraper, the cars, the road, and every other damn thing in the universe.

re: #113 Salamantis

Okay...you're into application rather than theory. You're right; that's where the big bucks are.

Yes. I also invent, so I take theory, create something useful, and apply it for my customers' benefit.

My late big brother ...
So sorry to hear.

re: #114 Naso Tang

Well, you have me puzzled. I too can create a random reducing engine that is guaranteed to ensure that 2+2 will always equal 4, no random mistakes allowed. Should I guess that what you do is more akin to determining if something is random or not?

No. In part of my work I use directed randomness to search for alternative solutions to problems. By finding a useful solution and applying it, the customers results become more consistent, thus less random. Ergo, from randomness comes non-randomness.

A good article.

Scientist's can admit they are wrong, yec'rs can't....

I am surprised by the number that almost every other person in the US believe's in yecism. Maybe that survey is off or mislabeled. Polling has it's faults.

I grew up a Methodist and was in an evangelical church a short time also. I can not remember any talk about yecism at all. I wonder which denominations populate the young earth creationist movement.

re: #116 Salamantis

But the stressors cannot dictate what kind of mutations arise.

How do you know that? What if a population of a species is invaded by another species that mates with it to create a different species and then the offspring dominate the environment and both of the original species eventually disappear. Thats no random mutation. Charles posted a thread with a story about that precise thing happening on an Island within the last year. Again, I say mutation is not random. Its more likely a response to conditions.

re: #119 Salamantis

You did if you're responsible for yourself, the skyscraper, the cars, the road, and every other damn thing in the universe.

Ah, but the drivers have free will.

I might add, that the laws of thermodynamics suggest that you cannot really reduce randomness, but at best just move it around.

re: #121 Max Darkside

No. In part of my work I use directed randomness to search for alternative solutions to problems. By finding a useful solution and applying it, the customers results become more consistent, thus less random. Ergo, from randomness comes non-randomness.

Ah, Monte Carlo in the 21st century.

re: #112 Mich-again

Yes I would say radiation is random, but because it would affect all the like creatures nearby, it would by definition be environmental.

It's a factor present in the environment,yes - but which particular bit of dna of which creature gets zapped and in what particular way is random.

re: #106 LudwigVanQuixote

I'll give both you and Sal a scotch. If you are ever in the DC area, I'll hook you up.

woohoo!

The full answer goes like this:

Yep.

I'm an engineer. We don't talk that much.

;>

re: #121 Max Darkside

No. In part of my work I use directed randomness to search for alternative solutions to problems. By finding a useful solution and applying it, the customers results become more consistent, thus less random. Ergo, from randomness comes non-randomness.

Okay; you develop algorithms with which to locate higher (more efficient/effective) peaks, in the probability landscape of possible solutions to particular problems, than the hills of relatively unsatisfactory elevation that your customers have parked themselves upon.

re: #127 Jimmah

It's a factor present in the environment,yes - but which particular bit of dna of which creature gets zapped and in what particular way is random.

Really? Science doesn't like random so much. Just because you don't know the reason does not mean there is no reason.

re: #128 Fried Spam

Yep.

I'm an engineer. We don't talk that much.

;>

Some of my best friends are engineers.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite engineer/physicist jokes...

Q: What is the difference between an Engineer and a Physicist?
A: The engineer gets an extra zero on the paycheck...

re: #130 Mich-again

In which case you seem to be disputing that radiation is random. I thought you already accepted that it is:

Yes I would say radiation is random

re: #123 Mich-again

How do you know that? What if a population of a species is invaded by another species that mates with it to create a different species and then the offspring dominate the environment and both of the original species eventually disappear. Thats no random mutation.

One of the chief definitions of species is that they cannot interbreed with other species and produce fertile offspring.

Charles posted a thread with a story about that precise thing happening on an Island within the last year. Again, I say mutation is not random. Its more likely a response to conditions.

It is selection that comprises the conditions. It decides not which mutations are produced, but which ones survive to reproduce.

re: #132 Jimmah

In which case you seem to be disputing that radiation is random. I thought you already accepted that it is:

It depends on the system being considered,

re: #130 Mich-again

Really? Science doesn't like random so much. Just because you don't know the reason does not mean there is no reason.

What is the reason the weak field did it's thing at just that moment and caused that decay? There is no reason, only a mechanism.

re: #130 Mich-again

Really? Science doesn't like random so much. Just because you don't know the reason does not mean there is no reason.

Science has discovered that some things ARE fundamentally random. Matched pairs of leptons and anti-leptons pop into and out of existence in the quantum foam all the time, and there's no way to predict when or where this will happen.

re: #131 LudwigVanQuixote

My favorite physics joke, told by my A-bomb teacher (modern physics to most people)...

If it wiggles, it's biology.

If it stinks, it's chemistry.

If it doesn't work, it's physics.

;>

re: #134 Mich-again

We are specifically considering radiation here, one of the main factors in causing mutations.

re: #133 Salamantis

In the post I mentioned. it was discovered just a few decades later that all of a certain breed of lizard that had been set loose on a another nearby Island had developed a new internal organ. Scientists were shocked that evolution happened that fast.

re: #136 Salamantis

Matched pairs of leptons and anti-leptons pop into and out of existence in the quantum foam all the time, and there's no way to predict when or where this will happen.

No way we understand yet. But maybe our thinking will evolve.

More radiation produces more mutations, just like environmental stressors can, but neither one of them can dictate what KINDS of mutations are produced.

Which once survive to reproduce is a matter of environmental selection.

re: #137 Fried Spam

My favorite physics joke, told by my A-bomb teacher (modern physics to most people)...

If it wiggles, it's biology.

If it stinks, it's chemistry.

If it doesn't work, it's physics.

;>

The version I heard was :

If it dies and smells bad its biology.
If it smells bad or blows up it's chemistry
It if blows up or just doesn't work, it's physics.

re: #129 Salamantis

Okay; you develop algorithms with which to locate higher (more efficient/effective) peaks, in the probability landscape of possible solutions to particular problems, than the hills of relatively unsatisfactory elevation that your customers have parked themselves upon.

Yes, something like that including the full spectrum from off-line to "real-time" dynamic systems. (real time is in scare quotes because that is a whole 'nuther debate like randomness and uncertainty).

re: #141 Salamantis

More radiation produces more mutations, just like environmental stressors can, but neither one of them can dictate what KINDS of mutations are produced.

Which once survive to reproduce is a matter of environmental selection.

You admitted that environment can create "more" mutations. Thats been my point all along. Its not just a random thing.

Bedtime for me. Night folks:)

re: #139 Mich-again

In the post I mentioned. it was discovered just a few decades later that all of a certain breed of lizard that had been set loose on a another nearby Island had developed a new internal organ. Scientists were shocked that evolution happened that fast.

It is to be expected that the genomes of some species have higher mutation rates than do others (as I recall, that particular lizard, the tuatara, has a greater genomic flexibility than any other organism yet studied for that property). But that's a property of the genome, and not of the environment. The environment selects for the mutations that survive, and selects against those that don't. It doesn't tell the genome which mutations to produce. It can't. It lacks consciousness and will, and cannot read what is informationally written in the genome, much less rewrite it in the language of the genetic code.

re: #144 Mich-again

You admitted that environment can create "more" mutations. Thats been my point all along. Its not just a random thing.

MORE mutations in rsponse to stress doesn't dictate what KINDS of mutations that they are. They still occur according to a random distribution.

re: #138 Jimmah

We are specifically considering radiation here, one of the main factors in causing mutations.

OK let me lake this simple. The radiation that hits a beach is "random" seeing that no one can yet predict cosmic events, But to all of the affected creatures there on the beach, that random radiation is an environmental effect.

re: #147 Salamantis

MORE mutations in rsponse to stress doesn't dictate what KINDS of mutations that they are. They still occur according to a random distribution.

So the lizards that migrated to an underground environment lost their sight because the ones born blind were more likely to survive and mate?

re: #140 Mich-again

No way we understand yet. But maybe our thinking will evolve.

Or maybe there are actual limits to empirical determination that are not a matter of limited cognitive capacity, or even the limits that exist as a result of our having to use one type of matter/energy to measure another type, but instead have to do with the way the universe inherently is. At least, that's what physicists have proven.

It's also what Godel proved regarding mathematics: that any axiomatic system sufficiently complex to permit self-reference must either contain the incorrect or remain incomplete.

re: #150 Salamantis

It's also what Godel proved regarding mathematics: that any axiomatic system sufficiently complex to permit self-reference must either contain the incorrect or remain incomplete.

Dang. Good one. Man I got nothing. See you again later!

re: #149 Mich-again

So the lizards that migrated to an underground environment lost their sight because the ones born blind were more likely to survive and mate?

Essentially, yes. Sight was useless in a pitch-dark environment, so the presence of eyes could no longer be an asset, and their liabilities in that environment (injury, infection) selected against them. The more vestigal the eye became, the less these liabilities applied; thus, mutations that produced less functional and more vestigal eyes were environmentally selected for.

re: #150 Salamantis

It's also what Godel proved regarding mathematics: that any axiomatic system sufficiently complex to permit self-reference must either contain the incorrect or remain incomplete.

No man is complete unless they read The Golden Braid. I personally cannot get from one end of that book to the other without setting it down for a few years to reset my brain. Some time later I make another go at it... Repeat like an Escher sketch... round and round forever.

re: #70 Salamantis

Such 'good mathematics' does not exist, and in fact when you get down to what causes most mutations in DNA (ambient radiation), it acts quite randomly, knocking awry those base pairs that the radiating particles just happen to smack into - it's just as random as are quantum fluctuation and Brownian motion. But since you are quite certain that there is no wiggle room whatsoever in anything, please demonstrate to Werner Heisenberg how his Uncertainty Principle is fatally flawed by precisely and simultaneously measuring the location and the momentum of an electron.

I guess my point isn't that you don't see "random" mutations its that I disagree that when taken as a whole they are adequate to the task assigned.

God's mold is a strange attractor.

re: #153 Max Darkside

No man is complete unless they read The Golden Braid. I personally cannot get from one end of that book to the other without setting it down for a few years to reset my brain. Some time later I make another go at it... Repeat like an Escher sketch... round and round forever.

I'm halfway through Douglas Hofstadter's latest: I Am A Strange Loop (2007 hc, 2008 pb). In it, he explicitly lays out the theory of self-conscious awareness that he was only analogically alluding to in GEB. I highly recommend it.

re: #155 Salamantis

I'm halfway through Douglas Hofstadter's latest: I Am A Strange Loop (2007 hc, 2008 pb). In it, he explicitly lays out the theory of self-conscious awareness that he was only analogically alluding to in GEB. I highly recommend it.

Is reading it survivable? I mean, can a mortal get from the front cover to the back without blowing out a brain muscle? I'm interested in self-conscious awareness re: computational systems. I'll go look for it on Amazon. Thx!

re: #154 palarson

I guess my point isn't that you don't see "random" mutations its that I disagree that when taken as a whole they are adequate to the task assigned.

God's mold is a strange attractor.

Terrestrial ecology is what it is, and changes how it changes. Amazing amounts of empirical perusal have yet to uncover any insufficiencies in the mutations that living things randomly undergo in their various and sundry niches that would necessitate any supraphysical intrusions.

re: #156 Max Darkside

Is reading it survivable? I mean, can a mortal get from the front cover to the back without blowing out a brain muscle? I'm interested in self-conscious awareness re: computational systems. I'll go look for it on Amazon. Thx!

It's a brain strain, all right; but I thrive on that sorta thing. Brain strains are growing pains, and I love to feel that cognitive burn.

If you wanna few brain strains for free, here are some articles I wrote on similar themes:

Tools, Language and Text: The Serial Isomorphic Evolution of Symbolic Capacity in Human Consciousness

[Link: blog.myspace.com...]

Gurwitsch, Piaget, and Recursive Equilibration

[Link: blog.myspace.com...]

The Scope of the Logical Square

[Link: blog.myspace.com...]

Bon Appetit...or not, as the case may be. If you like them and want to read more, just lemme know; I have 14 others.

re: #158 Salamantis

It's a brain strain, all right; but I thrive on that sorta thing. Brain strains are growing pains, and I love to feel that cognitive burn.

Just ordered it, thx.

If you wanna few brain strains for free, here are some articles I wrote on similar themes:

I'll go read, thx.

When this feedback loop is applied self-referentially ... that is, not to the perceived and acted upon but to the perceiving and acting of the organism itself, self-awareness results.

So, you define self-awareness as when an entity perceives its own perceptions, or acts upon its own actions? It is common for computer systems to be aware of their own performance and acts to improve same, but that isn't self-aware, would you say?

re: #124 Mich-again

Ah, but the drivers have free will.

If you're truly all-powerful and all-knowing, they can't be on a collision course without your not only knowing about it, but choosing it, beforehand - in fact, knowing about and choosing everything that ever happens in the Universe at the moment the Universe began. In which case, why actually make the damn thing? Living through such a Universe, from the Deific perspective, would have to be like sitting down and watching a rerun of a memorized movie.

And either you can change the movie at will, in which you cannot know how it goes in advance, or you know how it goes in advance, which means you cannot change it at will. In other words, either Omniscience or Omnipotence would have to fall by the wayside. The two properties can no more coexist with respect to a single Universe than can an Irresistable Force and an Immoveable Object coexist within it.

re: #160 Max Darkside

So, you define self-awareness as when an entity perceives its own perceptions, or acts upon its own actions? It is common for computer systems to be aware of their own performance and acts to improve same, but that isn't self-aware, would you say?

Computer programs do so mechanically. They cycle acording to strings of code, and can indeed mechanically respond to feedback, but their 'self'-referential loops are not strange, in the Godelian sense; they do not shift between levels of representation and meaning and grok themselves on a symbolic basis.

re: #15 gman

This is the part that tends to get pushed to the wayside. Scientists were arriving at the same conclusions as Darwin independent of Darwin's research.

Creationists love to have a single person to blame for everything.
They figure if they could prove Darwin wrong, the whole theory would implode.

That's an excellent point. Darwin wasn't the only scientist to reach the conclusions he reached about the diversity of life; he was just the first to publish. He was followed by an ever increasing number of scientists in an every increasing number of fields to expand our knowledge of evolution and the mechanisms through which it is accomplished.

I just visited the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta. Beyond their displays of dinosaur fossils, they have an amazing tour through time and evolution via the fossil record. I highly recommend it.

re: #162 Salamantis

Computer programs do so mechanically. They cycle acording to strings of code, and can indeed mechanically respond to feedback, but their 'self'-referential loops are not strange, in the Godelian sense; they do not shift between levels of representation and meaning and grok themselves on a symbolic basis.

"strange, in the Godelian sense" is what I will learn more about. I have created systems that have abstract representations of systems they sense, measure and improve towards a goal to make better products in manufacturing for example, and these systems use the same mechanisms to create abstract representations of themselves, and in that way they sense, measure and improve themselves. This self reflective capability I wouldn't really say is self-aware, probably for the same reason you would say they are not "strange, in the Godelian sense". Off to learn about that...

re: #157 Salamantis

Terrestrial ecology is what it is, and changes how it changes. Amazing amounts of empirical perusal have yet to uncover any insufficiencies in the mutations that living things randomly undergo in their various and sundry niches that would necessitate any supraphysical intrusions.

I say model it. If you say you have I'd say its lousy. If you insist then I'd say you craig ventor have something to talk about.

The heart of your proposition is that all the hugely amazing componentry making up the salamander's eye are wrought under the hood in all their untold glory until such time as all the vestigial pieces are in place at which time an equally amazing mutation occurs that weaves the parts together to reveal the at minimum "partially spherical concave" retinal surface. (The assumption here is that a misshapen retina has no use to the poor creature not to mention my own guess that it would take an incredibly complex mix and number of genes to create a partially spherical concave surface) And because all of the pieces of all the potentially "useful" as well as all the undeniably unusable and deadly mutant "wannabe" gene fragments have to germ together simultaneously, preparing for the next big leg of the poor creature's journey, all have to operate in a mutually symbiotic fashion of sorts, boggles the mind. The best thing you can conclude is that the poor thing would have to be the size of the titanic.

Evolutionary theory is the materialists analog to counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Stop wasting your brain power, get back in the lab and go invent something useful.

In reading the article and comments on this thread I have been processing some rather long strings of code. Suppose in examining different strings of code I came upon a string which read: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa." I would conclude that this string of code was complex, inasmuch as it is composed of 30 characters. I would also conclude that it was not able to convey information, inasmuch as it is a regular, repeating sequence. With only one choice for each character the code cannot be altered to convey information.

If I find a string of code which read: "aaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa" this would open the possibility that there is a binary code consisting of spaces and "a" which could convey information.

If I find a string of code which read: "zals;djopquadhpoqja;ldsoaihthi" it would take a little more investigating to come to the conclusion that this was randomly produced and not a code which conveys information given the proper protocol for deciphering it.

If I find a string of code that read: "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" and upon closer examination of source of the code found that the code generator could not do anything other than follow "a" with "b", "b" with "c", and so forth, I would conclude that this code, too could not convey information. The pattern, more complex than a repeating string of the letter "a", still follows the pattern it does because it has to. There is no ability to alter the code to convey information.

If I find a string of code which reads: "Honey, I ran to the store to buy milk. Your lunch for work is packed and waiting in the refrigerator. I love you;" I instantly conclude that this string of code was "intelligently designed." If I go to the 'fridge and find my lunch packed, I conclude that my wife, in fact, did write the message and meant to convey the information that I got from it.

How do I distinguish random, undesigned strings of code from designed strings of code?

1) If the codons do not of necessity fall into a particular pattern;
2) If the codons form a string of sufficient complexity to be unlikely to occur randomly;
3) If the codons convey information which can be deciphered using a protocol for processing the code;
4) If the codons produce information which is functional and specific;

I conclude that this string of code was intelligently designed.

To try another example, let's say I take a million Scrabble chips, mix them up, dump them on the floor, go away for an hour, and then come back and examine them. If I find an occasional string of chips that form "cat" or "dog" or "bird" I am likely to conclude that these occurred randomly and undirectedly. If I find a string of chips that form "antidisestablishmentarianism" I will be likely to conclude that someone came into the (large) room while I was away and designed this string. If I find a string that forms "there is a large maple tree outside the west window" I will certainly attribute it intelligent design and assign zero probability to this being a randomly and undirectedly formed string. If I look out the window and see a maple tree I will be even more convinced that this string did not happen randomly.

The point here is that information does not arise by chance, much less functionally specified complex information. Any time functionally specified complex information is found and the source of that information is open to direct investigation, it is always the product of intelligent design.

An example of using intelligent design as a basis for scientific study is archeology. One of the basic tenets of archeology is that designed implements (e.g. arrowheads) can be distinguished from nondesigned objects of similar composition.

Sorry to exceed polite lengths for a post, but the idea requires a little development. If you disagree with the thrust of this argument, please explain how know that I have written this rather than this just being a random hiccup on the vast array of interconnected electronics that make up the Internet.

re: #166 ubercheesehead

The point here is that information does not arise by chance, much less functionally specified complex information. Any time functionally specified complex information is found and the source of that information is open to direct investigation, it is always the product of intelligent design.

An example of using intelligent design as a basis for scientific study is archeology. One of the basic tenets of archeology is that designed implements (e.g. arrowheads) can be distinguished from nondesigned objects of similar composition.

Sorry to exceed polite lengths for a post, but the idea requires a little development. If you disagree with the thrust of this argument, please explain how know that I have written this rather than this just being a random hiccup on the vast array of interconnected electronics that make up the Internet.

This provides absolutely no basis for intelligent design. You basically say that because we know humans can design complex objects or "complex information," that any time we see anything complex in nature, it must be designed. This is not science, not even close. And it is incredibly faulty logic.

re: #165 palarson

I say model it. If you say you have I'd say its lousy. If you insist then I'd say you craig ventor have something to talk about.

The heart of your proposition is that all the hugely amazing componentry making up the salamander's eye are wrought under the hood in all their untold glory until such time as all the vestigial pieces are in place at which time an equally amazing mutation occurs that weaves the parts together to reveal the at minimum "partially spherical concave" retinal surface. (The assumption here is that a misshapen retina has no use to the poor creature not to mention my own guess that it would take an incredibly complex mix and number of genes to create a partially spherical concave surface)

Bad assumption, and the one that kills your argument. Behe attempts to make the same 'irreduceable complexity' assumption, and Ken Miller completely and comprehensively destroyed his position. It has been destroyed for the eye. It has been destroyed for the flagellum. It has been destroyed for every single process or organ that has been proffered. And practically everybody here knows it. Components of such complexes can, and typically do, have their own selectable functions, often far removed from their function in the ending complex. In other words, irreducible complexity is eminently reducible to useful and functional parts.

Anyone who has checked the evolution of the eye out knows how the usefulness of light sensitive cells is magnified by first concavities and then lenses, and in fact, versions of just about every step of this evolution are abservable in living creatures that found no reason, in their particular niches, for the process to proceed further.

And because all of the pieces of all the potentially "useful" as well as all the undeniably unusable and deadly mutant "wannabe" gene fragments have to germ together simultaneously, preparing for the next big leg of the poor creature's journey, all have to operate in a mutually symbiotic fashion of sorts, boggles the mind. The best thing you can conclude is that the poor thing would have to be the size of the titanic.

What? Do you reallize how SMALL genes are? The human genome is a tiny strand, but still contains 3 BILLION base pairs.

Damn, it's fun to watch the willfully ignorant fall on their faces trying and failing to ridicule that which they dare not comprehend!

Evolutionary theory is the materialists analog to counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Stop wasting your brain power, get back in the lab and go invent something useful.

Umm...in the absence of evolutionary theory, Watson & Crick would never have known to look for DNA in the first place and we never would have been able to splice the Vitamin A producing sequence into the rice genome, saving millions of southeast asian kids from rickets. Go tell THEM how useless the theory is!

re: #166 ubercheesehead

Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning.

George H. Smith

In other words, you cannot ascend from an ascription of intelligent design in nature to the existence of a Deific Designer, because the assumption that everything is designed removes the distinction between that which is and that which is not designed, and there would remain no basis by means of which to draw such a distinction. One could only first assume the existence of such a Deific Designer, and then attempt to descend from there to try to point to examples of its design in the world. But such a Theistic assumption is metaphysical and religious, and has no place in either empirical science or in a public high school science classroom.

re: #167 JamesWI

This provides absolutely no basis for intelligent design. You basically say that because we know humans can design complex objects or "complex information," that any time we see anything complex in nature, it must be designed. This is not science, not even close. And it is incredibly faulty logic.

I said no such thing. What I actually said was,"Any time functionally specified complex information is found and the source of that information is open to direct investigation, it is always the product of intelligent design."

I did not say that because humans design things that this therefore proves that all functional objects must be designed. That would be a nice easy one to knock out of the park. In the future please respond to the actual argument instead of the one you wish I had made.

re: #170 ubercheesehead

I said no such thing. What I actually said was,"Any time functionally specified complex information is found and the source of that information is open to direct investigation, it is always the product of intelligent design."

And this statement is patently false. We directly investigate the sorce information of genomes, but they evolved over billions of years via random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, a basically unintelligent, autochthonous, stochastic process.

I did not say that because humans design things that this therefore proves that all functional objects must be designed. That would be a nice easy one to knock out of the park. In the future please respond to the actual argument instead of the one you wish I had made.

All you are doing is arguing over the semantic difference between six and half a dozen. Your assertion is functionally the same, and contains the same functional truth value: it is false.

re: #169 Salamantis
There are properties of objects in the natural world which are inherent in the objects. Water must freeze at 32*F at sea level. It is inherent in its composition. It is only when objects begin to display properties which are not contingent upon the immutable morphology or function of their constituent components that design begins to surface as a legitimate field of inquiry.

The universe exhibits regularity and predictability on a macroscopic scale that are consistent with the supposition of a designer, but could just as well not be designed. It is when we begin to see complexity and functionality that are not inevitable outcomes of the constituent parts that design comes into play.

For example, even though DKos is full of absolute drivel that no intelligent human being would think, it is nevertheless reasonable to assign intelligent agency to both the format and contents of the code that forms it. In other words, DKos is not an example of "lucky noise" that randomly formed the site and its contents.

re: #166 ubercheesehead

You took a lot of effort to basically state the old "watchmaker" argument.

Whether there is a watchmaker or not does not change the fact it falls outside the realm of science.

re: #171 Salamantis

"And this statement is patently false. We directly investigate the sorce information of genomes, but they evolved over billions of years via random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, a basically unintelligent, autochthonous, stochastic process."

So, are you saying you have been around for billions of years to directly investigate the source information for genomes? What a silly argument. When you assume the truth of the proposition you are trying to prove in your proof, this is what is sometimes known as "begging the question."

But what do I know. I don't even exist as a human being. All these words are being formed randomly.

re: #173 Sharmuta

You took a lot of effort to basically state the old "watchmaker" argument.

Whether there is a watchmaker or not does not change the fact it falls outside the realm of science.

Well, I was kind of hoping that if I've missed something in my synthesis of a world view maybe someone could deconstruct it for me rather than either making a straw man of it or telling me it's an old argument. But thanks for the input anyway.

re: #172 ubercheesehead

There are properties of objects in the natural world which are inherent in the objects. Water must freeze at 32*F at sea level. It is inherent in its composition. It is only when objects begin to display properties which are not contingent upon the immutable morphology or function of their constituent components that design begins to surface as a legitimate field of inquiry.

The universe exhibits regularity and predictability on a macroscopic scale that are consistent with the supposition of a designer, but could just as well not be designed. It is when we begin to see complexity and functionality that are not inevitable outcomes of the constituent parts that design comes into play.

For example, even though DKos is full of absolute drivel that no intelligent human being would think, it is nevertheless reasonable to assign intelligent agency to both the format and contents of the code that forms it. In other words, DKos is not an example of "lucky noise" that randomly formed the site and its contents.

You have fallen prey to the fallacy of the Observer Selection Effect, which is related to the Anthropic Pirinciple.

Where Are They?
Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing.
By Nick Bostrom
[Link: www.technologyreview.com...]
(free registration required)

Now, it might be thought an amazing coincidence if Earth were the only planet in the galaxy on which intelligent life evolved. If it happened here, the one planet we have studied closely, surely one would expect it to have happened on a lot of other planets in the galaxy--planets we have not yet had the chance to examine. This objection, however, rests on a fallacy: it overlooks what is known as an "observation selection effect." Whether intelligent life is common or rare, every observer is guaranteed to originate from a place where intelligent life did, in fact, arise. Since only the successes give rise to observers who can wonder about their existence, it would be a mistake to regard our planet as a randomly selected sample from all planets. (It would be closer to the mark to regard our planet as a random sample from the subset of planets that did engender intelligent life, this being a crude formulation of one of the saner ideas extractable from the motley ore referred to as the "anthropic principle.")

Since this point confuses many, it is worth expanding on it slightly. Consider two different hypotheses. One says that the evolution of intelligent life is a fairly straightforward process that happens on a significant fraction of all suitable planets. The other hypothesis says that the evolution of intelligent life is extremely complicated and happens perhaps on only one out of a million billion planets. To evaluate their plausibility in light of your evidence, you must ask yourself, "What do these hypotheses predict I should observe?" If you think about it, both hypotheses clearly predict that you should observe that your civilization originated in places where intelligent life evolved. All observers will share that observation, whether the evolution of intelligent life happened on a large or a small fraction of all planets. An observation-selection effect guarantees that whatever planet we call "ours" was a success story. And as long as the total number of planets in the universe is large enough to compensate for the low proba­bility of any given one of them giving rise to intelligent life, it is not a surprise that a few success stories exist.

Sal: Likewise the fact that we are here to notice it means that it was possible for the Universe to happen this way rather than otherwise, because it is quite obviously did. Once you have an actuality, the only probability you can assign to it is 1, because it most certainly is. Everything else is just idle and baseless speculation, and about as idiotic as attempting to calculate degrees of impossibility.

Hey Jimmah! Shar! Sal! Genexer! Kulwhch!
-- aka: Kul and the Gang!

I had to go out for a few hours.
I come back and find that you'd had a reunion without me!
I sure am glad to know you don't think poorly of me, what with me being a Christian and believing in God and all.
I mean, that's what you said the other night - that it's ok to believe in God, I'm sure glad it's ok with you.
Disagree without being disagreeable.
Now that's the ticket.
Boy, if only there were more rational folks like all y'all . . . Gosh this'd be a swell world! Wouldn't it?

Dang! Look what somebody posted under your name, Sal. Boy, what some people won't do. Must not be a clear thinking, rational person.

= = = = = = =

re: #103 Salamantis

I present a link to a talk given by He Whom Creationists Regard As The Devil, explaining the whys and wherefores of his Dark Allegiance to Atheism:

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

Just figured I'd hava li'l fun and piss off the usual suspects...;~)

= = = = = = =

Oh Sal: Are you aware that Dawkins actually thinks it's possible for life to have arisen by design . . . as long as the designer comes from another part of the universe and has evolved into their/its/His present life-giving form. Yep, atheist thinking at its best.

And you say Christians have some strange thoughts!?

re: #174 ubercheesehead

"And this statement is patently false. We directly investigate the source information of genomes, but they evolved over billions of years via random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, a basically unintelligent, autochthonous, stochastic process."

So, are you saying you have been around for billions of years to directly investigate the source information for genomes? What a silly argument. When you assume the truth of the proposition you are trying to prove in your proof, this is what is sometimes known as "begging the question."

But what do I know. I don't even exist as a human being. All these words are being formed randomly.

We don't have to have been here to see it; we have genetic evidence all over the planet. Your approach to DNA evidence seems to be about the same as the OJ Simpson jury; it disagrees with what we wanna believe is true, so to Hell with it. But it is checkable at will, and is not going away.

Please explain how we can share thousands of indentical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences with great apes, and located in isomorphic positions in our and their respective genomes, in the absence of divergence from shared ancestors.

re: #175 ubercheesehead

What worldview? That there is a "designer"? That is obviously debatable for many people, and not a point I'm likely to deconstruct for anyone as I 1) agree there is a God, and 2) feel it's a personal issue for everyone. However- my belief in God is just that- a belief. Science cannot help me in this worldview, and to argue that it can is to seriously confuse both God and science.

re: #175 ubercheesehead

Well, I was kind of hoping that if I've missed something in my synthesis of a world view maybe someone could deconstruct it for me rather than either making a straw man of it or telling me it's an old argument. But thanks for the input anyway.

It's a VERY old argument; in fact, Thomas Henry Huxley demolished Bishop Samuel Wilberforce when he endeavored to defend it in an Oxford Society debate in 1860, 148 years ago, and it has only become even more discredited as science has advanced in the intervening years.

re: #177 least

Please- show me where in any of my comments on this topic where I've been condescending to anyone about their faith. I've done no such thing. I've merely asked the DI and their ilk to keep their faith off of other people's children.

Here I was hoping with your apology to Charles the other day you'd re-examine a few things, but from your tone it appears not. I'm not going to engage any further with you on this tonight. Your rhetoric displays that you're not here to be an honest, reasonable debater.

re: #177 least

Oh Sal: Are you aware that Dawkins actually thinks it's possible for life to have arisen by design . . . as long as the designer comes from another part of the universe and has evolved into their/its/His present life-giving form. Yep, atheist thinking at its best.

And you say Christians have some strange thoughts!?

All Dawkins would be saying is that it is within the realm of logical possibility that some lifeform could have sufficiently evolved during the 13.7 BILLION years that the universe has been around to have built spaceships, journeyed here and dropped off some living material. After all, our own earth is far younger, at only 4.6 billion tears old. But to admit of such a possibility is not to repudiate evolutionary theory, and such hypothetical beings, while, if they indeed existed, would be far more scientifically and technologically advanced than we are, could hardly be called Gods; they themselves would have had to have evolved.

To maintain that life came from offplanet is merely to kick the evolutionary can down the Universal road to another planet, and not off it.

re: #174 ubercheesehead

So, are you saying you have been around for billions of years to directly investigate the source information for genomes? What a silly argument. When you assume the truth of the proposition you are trying to prove in your proof, this is what is sometimes known as "begging the question."

But what do I know. I don't even exist as a human being. All these words are being formed randomly.

Your original post was essentially a 3000 word example of begging the question, as you assume the truth of a designer. And please, do not do the "how do you know anyone actually typed these words, it's could just be random" line. For someone who wrote such a long post trying to sound smart, it just defeats your purpose to insult our intelligence with such silly points.

Umm...4.6 billion YEARS old...PIMF

re: #58 rawmuse

A missing link?

And they illustrate it with a positively ancient photo commonly considered to be a fraud. Yeah, right.

As far as I know northwestern Ontario has never been a hotbed of Sasquatch sightings. The phenomenon has always been centered in that region of the Coast Mountains of British Columbia north of Harrison Lake, and encompassing the villages of Lytton, Lillooet, Pemberton, and Squamish.

It's a large region, and very rugged. Aside from the river valleys and large lakes, it's a trackless wilderness. While I don't personally believe that the Sasquatch exists, it's not totally unreasonable to believe that a large reclusive animal could not exist within that region and escape all but a few fleeting encounters with human beings.

I'll bet you the Telegraph has no idea of how much of that country has been logged off.

re: #183 JamesWI

Your original post was essentially a 3000 word example of begging the question, as you assume the truth of a designer. And please, do not do the "how do you know anyone actually typed these words, it's could just be random" line. For someone who wrote such a long post trying to sound smart, it just defeats your purpose to insult our intelligence with such silly points.

Maybe silly to you, sir, but calling an argument silly does but little to refute it.

re: #180 Salamantis

It's a VERY old argument; in fact, Thomas Henry Huxley demolished Bishop Samuel Wilberforce when he endeavored to defend it in an Oxford Society debate in 1860, 148 years ago, and it has only become even more discredited as science has advanced in the intervening years.

The age of an argument does nothing to address its validity. If Huxley so ably demolished one of its proponents so well, why is it still around? And far from being increasingly discredited, the emergence of information theory opens a whole new field of examination of inference from design.

re: #178 Salamantis

Please explain how we can share thousands of indentical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences with great apes, and located in isomorphic positions in our and their respective genomes, in the absence of divergence from shared ancestors.

While that is a question to explore, it really has nothing to do with the argument I was making. If you want to start a discussion about it, feel free; and I may even join in. However, since the substance of my original post hasn't (IMHO) been adequately addressed, why would I want to go running down every bunny trail you can point down? Sorry, Watch the Dummy Run is definitely a spectator sport for me.

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

A student comes to you and asks the following:

"I understand that F=ma. I understand that there are equal and
opposite forces, like the Earth pushes up on me exactly as hard as I
push down on it. The two forces cancel or I would go through the
ground. But if that is true, and the force from my feet is always
canceled by the force from the Earth, how could I ever jump up?"

How would you answer this student's question?

Ha! I had a similar question in my first physics class. How would the Earth or a wall know when to anticipate my stomping or pushing against it?

I think that the most satisfying answer has to do with resistance of deformation of molecules and their bonds.

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

re: #177 least

IMO time and distance are mortal concepts and part of the creation of God. Time exists for sentient beings to help them understand the creation and evolve. My imagination thinks there are some relatives of the concepts of time and distance that are known only to God. When people try to place God at a far away point in time and space they put themselves on a swinging pendulum until they evolve their faith and/or their observations.

The fact that we have three large bodies of religious thought interpeting the infinite as Yeshouah, God, and Allah points to the fallability of our interpetations. No one is really right. But are they on the right path? The principles of evolution are at work in all three of those religions. There is selection and speciation occuring. Faith does evolve as it is tested.

re: #67 Sharmuta

Next time one of the anti-evolutionists wants to bring up the dino-tissue:
Scientists question dinosaur soft tissue find

Yes, fight anti-evolutionists with speculation as if it were fact. Good idea!

"We are not experts in the field," Kaye admitted in a telephone interview."

Oh, but that's ok. Go right ahead. As long as you're a scientist of something or other.

"We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein. We are offering an alternative explanation."

Golly, why does Kaye feel the need to offer an alternate explanation? Can't this data be easily incorporated into the theory of evolution?

And how old is the bacteria inside these bones? If a biofilm formed around the capillaries, the biofilm would have to be about as old as the T.Rex. I don't think 68 million year old biofilms are stretchy and pliable as Mary Schweitzer described.

"We determined that these structures were too common to be exceptionally preserved tissue. We realized it couldn't be a one-time exceptional preservation," Kaye said.

Incidentally, the term "one-time exceptional" is the scientific way of saying "miraculous."

Oh wow, I feel so humbled by the power of the scientific method demonstrated here!

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

re: #186 ubercheesehead

The age of an argument does nothing to address its validity. If Huxley so ably demolished one of its proponents so well, why is it still around? And far from being increasingly discredited, the emergence of information theory opens a whole new field of examination of inference from design.

It is still around because people who don't know any better continue to bring it up out of ignorance, and some people who DO know better bring it up because they are counting on the ignorance of their audience (the Disco Dewdes do this a lot, as do several people onlist). Actually, information theory adds nothing to this discredited old chestnut; in fact, if the genomes of lifeforms were intelligently designed, a lot of the useless garbage found in there wouldn't be present. Just like no intelligent designer would have forced a panda thumb to evolve from a wristbone; it would have been given a thumb in the first place.

While that is a question to explore, it really has nothing to do with the argument I was making. If you want to start a discussion about it, feel free; and I may even join in. However, since the substance of my original post hasn't (IMHO) been adequately addressed, why would I want to go running down every bunny trail you can point down? Sorry, Watch the Dummy Run is definitely a spectator sport for me.

I figured you wouldn't want to discuss something such as thousands of shared identical artifactual retroviral DNA sequences in identical locations in human and great ape genomes, which prove so conclusively that humans and great apes share common ancestors. But they in fact do prove precisely that, to a statistical probability almost mathematically indistinguishable from absolute and apodictic certainty, and beyond a shadow of a sane or rational doubt.

re: #189 Spar Kling

Yes, fight anti-evolutionists with speculation as if it were fact. Good idea!

"We are not experts in the field," Kaye admitted in a telephone interview."

Oh, but that's ok. Go right ahead. As long as you're a scientist of something or other.

"We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein. We are offering an alternative explanation."

Golly, why does Kaye feel the need to offer an alternate explanation? Can't this data be easily incorporated into the theory of evolution?

And how old is the bacteria inside these bones? If a biofilm formed around the capillaries, the biofilm would have to be about as old as the T.Rex. I don't think 68 million year old biofilms are stretchy and pliable as Mary Schweitzer described.

"We determined that these structures were too common to be exceptionally preserved tissue. We realized it couldn't be a one-time exceptional preservation," Kaye said.

Incidentally, the term "one-time exceptional" is the scientific way of saying "miraculous."

Oh wow, I feel so humbled by the power of the scientific method demonstrated here!

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

When you add chemicals that are caustic enough to dissolve all solid rigid minerals out, what you are left with, if anything, is stretchy and pliable by default.

Apart from his epiphany when two non paleontologists discovered, 'how closely whales are related to antelopes' from an ankle bone, the article is lacklustre recycling material.

Almost as lacklustre as Sharmuta's claim that T rex soft tissues and red cells must be bacterial slime, because they're 64 million years old!

By the way, Salamantis, I though (including indels) the difference between chimps (not apes) and man was 5% (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99(21):13633-5.), not so different from an oak tree then! Can you help with the reference for your 'absolute and apodictic certainty'.

re: #110 LudwigVanQuixote

I disgree. If God can see the future as we can see the past then he isn't predicting what will happen in the future, he is recollecting it. Since hidden variables have been ruled out in QM, even God wouldn't be able to truly predict the precise moment of say, a spontaneous nuclear disintegration.

I am sorry I do not understand. If G-d is recollecting our future as His past, then how is it possible that He couldn't know the point in His past when there was a disintegration, or any other thing, that hasn't happened to us yet?

Dang - missed this one last night. Yes, you are misunderstanding me. He would know - he would have a memory of the event, what he wouldn't be able to give is an explanation as to why the event occurrred exactly when it did.

Some interesting thoughts on dysteleology, like the Panda's thumb, but I don't suppose such pearls will mean much here.

re: #161 Salamantis

I'll have to just disagree with you there. Completely.

Whilst we're considering DNA homologies. Interesting that homo erectus morphology specimens in the Australian Kow swamp have essentially indistinguishable mtDNA from modern man (although attempts to reclassify the morphology are underway).

Curious that eh chaps?

re: #192 ebed_melech

Apart from his epiphany when two non paleontologists discovered, 'how closely whales are related to antelopes' from an ankle bone, the article is lacklustre recycling material.

Almost as lacklustre as Sharmuta's claim that T rex soft tissues and red cells must be bacterial slime, because they're 64 million years old!

By the way, Salamantis, I though (including indels) the difference between chimps (not apes) and man was 5% (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99(21):13633-5.), not so different from an oak tree then! Can you help with the reference for your 'absolute and apodictic certainty'.

Try here:

[Link: www.nature.com...]

excerpt:

Nucleotide divergence
Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover 2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.

Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information 'Genome evolution'), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is 1.06% or less.

And, btw, the oak tree genome is far, FAR removed from such a rate. For one thing, tree genomes typically have around 600 million base pairs, while the human genome has 3 BILLION base pairs, when means that if EVERY SEQUENCE in the oak was also found in human DNA, it would comprise less than 20% of the human genome.

95% shared human and oak tree DNA? BWAHAHAHAHAAAA! What comedy site do you pull such hilarious contentions from? You simply MUST share!

re: #196 ebed_melech

Whilst we're considering DNA homologies. Interesting that homo erectus morphology specimens in the Australian Kow swamp have essentially indistinguishable mtDNA from modern man (although attempts to reclassify the morphology are underway).

Curious that eh chaps?

The article doesn't refer to Homo Erectus; it refers to Neandertals. And Neandertals ARE a lot closer to us genetically than even chimpanzees are.

re: #194 ebed_melech

Some interesting thoughts on dysteleology, like the Panda's thumb, but I don't suppose such pearls will mean much here.

No; endeavoring to explain such things as vestigal organs and spandrels by appealing to the Fall From Grace doesn't really trip my empirical science trigger.

re: #195 Mich-again

I'll have to just disagree with you there. Completely.

Okay, but why? What are your reasons?

I thought that an excellent article for the layperson! Thank you.

Delighted to see you're back in action 'mantis.
Of course, you need to learn distinguish between gentle leg pulling and serious critique. Otherwise you might take some homologies a little too seriously. The turkey-triceratops hybrid!

Actually the review I linked too comes from this source where the references is not to Neanderthals, but australopithecines - usually subdivided into gracile and robust (terms you'll find liberally in the text, and which if anything is earlier than homo erectus morphology though I understood the cranial morphology is similar - I can't prove this personally, it's not my own field). Neanderthals seem to have bred and been buried with modern man - so it wouldn't be at all surprising if their genes were identical.

Now then perhaps you can now provide us with a genuine empirical science trigger, by telling us what kind of evidence would falsify evolution? Is there any? Or is it such a plastic construct that is unassailably unfalsifiable?

Will be busy for a while then hope to digest the piece from Nature you've cited as key to your curiously absolute conviction.

I've never held that Darwinism and Creationism were mutually exclusive. Isn't it possible that evolution is the tool of creation? It's possible to believe in both the hammer and the carpenter in the making of a beautiful piece of furniture.

By the way, the Prof mentioned in the Time piece here, Douglas Futayma, is the one who copied Haeckel's fraudulent and contrived drawings into his 1998 text. He acknowledged his ignorance of one of the most serious scientific frauds of two centuries after the event.

It's a pity the embarrassingly flawed 'embryology recapitulates ontogeny' argument isn't more carefully nuanced in the article - given the serious mistakes made in the past.
There is also documentation in the piece indicating Haeckel's encouragement to Nazism (Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, American Elsevier, New York, 1971, pp. xvi, xvii)

(cue end of thread, Charles)

re: #203 smill1953

Just a few thoughts on this question.
If you're serious about Torah or about the Gospels:
what is the origin of death?
What is the origin of evil?
Is man getting better or worse (albeit with his considerable capacity for technological improvement)?

Christ said, if you don' believe Moses writings how can you believe Me?

Interesting that the cutting insights Genesis/Bereshit provides on evil, temptation, sin and man's nobility and depravity are all but lost on this proud and lost generation - so well educated and yet so ignorant of basic realities! Even Thomas Huxley ('Darwin's bulldog') recognised a little of this:

His 1893 Romanes lecture:
"The doctrines of predestination, of original sin, of the innate depravity of man and the evil fate of the greater part of the race, of the primacy of the Satan of this world, of the essential vileness of matter, of a malevolent Demiurgus subordinate to a benevolent Almighty, who has only lately revealed himself, faulty as they are, appear to me to be vastly nearer the truth than the 'liberal' popular illusions that babies are all born good, and that the example of a corrupt society is responsible for their failure to remain so; that it is given to everybody to reach the ethical ideal if he will only try; that all partial evil is universal good, and other optimistic figments, such as that which represents 'Providence' under the guise of a paternal philanthropist, and bids us believe that everything will come right (according to our notions) at last."

Actually this is grand, almost funny, in a truly sad way :

-> Rationality ("evolutionism") professes violence (e.g. the "advantages" of rape for males is something that's an obvious part of evolution, the constant extermination war between species and even families) and never actually uses violence to spread itself (this wasn't necessary when Christian "nutcases" were in charge, now with atheist "rational" human beings it seems violence will soon be necessary, when the last Christian "nutcases" leave)
-> Islam's creationism professes peace, and uses lots and lots of bullets. When Christian "nutcases" were in charge, this was eventually stopped by bombing the hell out of said muslims. This worked. Now with atheist "rational" beings in charge, they're just letting the bullets in saying "we have nothing to fear but fear itself", all the while pissing their pants.

The real question, according to Darwin's idea applied to memes is simple : which is stronger bulltets - or words. Given the state of the "islamic world", I'm betting on bullets. Can darwinism win without using violence ? Perhaps. But - isn't this grand - evolution seems to provide ample evidence that it cannot.

re: #202 ebed_melech

Delighted to see you're back in action 'mantis.
Of course, you need to learn distinguish between gentle leg pulling and serious critique. Otherwise you might take some homologies a little too seriously. The turkey-triceratops hybrid!

It's not surprising that they would crack that April Fool's Day leg pulling, because birds are among the dinosaurs' closest living relatives. But dino DNA is only found in big-budget Hollywood movies. Jurassic Park ain't a gonna happen.

Actually the review I linked too comes from this source where the references is not to Neanderthals, but australopithecines - usually subdivided into gracile and robust (terms you'll find liberally in the text, and which if anything is earlier than homo erectus morphology though I understood the cranial morphology is similar - I can't prove this personally, it's not my own field). Neanderthals seem to have bred and been buried with modern man - so it wouldn't be at all surprising if their genes were identical.

Actually, reading the linked article, it becomes clear that they are discussing archaic australian aboriginals, not australopithecines. I hate to break this to you, but australopithecines were restricted to Africa, and lived a couple of million years ago; the Lake Mungo specimen referred to (which was the oldest of the specimens) was only 60,000 years pld, and well within the range of modern humans. What they are actually tracking is mitochondrial DNA, which only passes from mothers to children, and not from fathers, and does indeed all trace to a supposed "Eve", who lived around 140,000 years ago.

Now then perhaps you can now provide us with a genuine empirical science trigger, by telling us what kind of evidence would falsify evolution? Is there any? Or is it such a plastic construct that is unassailably unfalsifiable?

Will be busy for a while then hope to digest the piece from Nature you've cited as key to your curiously absolute conviction.

Evolutionary theory is eminently falsifiable, in principle. Just find a placental mammal fossil within Pre-Cambrian geological strata that dates to the strata's age, or any variation on that theme, of a species that, according to evolutionary history, cannot have existed when a representative died. Or find any living species lacking genetic material. Or find two members of the same species with widely divergent DNA. Or find two members of widely divergent species with identical DNA.

Of course you won't be able to find any of these; just because a scientific theory is, in principle, falsifiable, doesn't mean that it will or can actually be falsified. And why not? Well, because the theory could be...wait for it...TRUE! You know; like evolutionary theory is!

re: #204 ebed_melech

By the way, the Prof mentioned in the Time piece here, Douglas Futayma, is the one who copied Haeckel's fraudulent and contrived drawings into his 1998 text. He acknowledged his ignorance of one of the most serious scientific frauds of two centuries after the event.

Yeah, a scientist here or there can make a mistake. Buit there are hundreds of thousands of them, and the overwhelming consensus of them, buttressed by millions upon millions of empirical experiemnts and investigations within the last century and a half, is that evolutionary theory is valid, solid, and sound. In fact, it's among the most empirical-evidence-corroborated theories in the history of science. I know that this fact sticks in creationists' craws like sideways popsicle sticks, but them's the brass tacks facts.

It's a pity the embarrassingly flawed 'embryology recapitulates ontogeny' argument isn't more carefully nuanced in the article - given the serious mistakes made in the past.
There is also documentation in the piece indicating Haeckel's encouragement to Nazism (Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, American Elsevier, New York, 1971, pp. xvi, xvii)

(cue end of thread, Charles)

The bare fact of the matter is that not only is eugenics the absolute antithesis of evolution, because people who accept evolutionary theory are in favor of allowing natural selection to proceed unhindered, while eugenicists are all desirous of imposing their own particular 'intelligent designs', but it is also telling that creationists think that evolutionary theory is as brittle as they perceive their own religious edifices to be. Creationists fear that proving a single thing wrong with their beliefs (such as that humans and great apes diverged from common ancestors, which they did, or that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, which it is) could cause their entire faith edifice to collapse down around their ears. They HOPE that evolutionary theory is that brittle. But it's not. Unlike forever frozen religious dogma, evolutionary theory changes. As more information comes in, the theory is honed, elaborated, augmented and refined. Evolutionary theory itself evolves - and is constantly amended in response to further empirical evidence - just like that evolutionary document, the US Constitution, can be amended and evolve in response to changing sociopolitical circumstances.

PS: The Christian faith is not that brittle, either; just the fundamentalist literalists' conception of it. Most Christians have no problem whatsoever accepting evolutionary theory as valid science and Genesis as metaphorical (the Roman Catholic Church, for instance).

re: #205 ebed_melech

Just a few thoughts on this question.
If you're serious about Torah or about the Gospels:
what is the origin of death?
What is the origin of evil?
Is man getting better or worse (albeit with his considerable capacity for technological improvement)?

Death is part of life, and always has been. Being born has always been eventually fatal. Good and evil are human categories, that began when we became human, that is, when we became self-consciously aware. Evolution precedes apace for humans, like it does for all species. But it makes no sense to ascribe such categories as cosmically 'better' or 'worse' to its results, for species mutations cannot be evaluated except in relation to their ambient environments, and it is indeed these environments that evaluate them by selecting for or against them.

Christ said, if you don' believe Moses writings how can you believe Me?

Which raises the whole question of how we could be anywhere near certain that the people who wrote those books correctly quoted someone who was dead for at least a half century before the books supposedly quoting him were written.

Interesting that the cutting insights Genesis/Bereshit provides on evil, temptation, sin and man's nobility and depravity are all but lost on this proud and lost generation - so well educated and yet so ignorant of basic realities! Even Thomas Huxley ('Darwin's bulldog') recognised a little of this:

His 1893 Romanes lecture:
"The doctrines of predestination, of original sin, of the innate depravity of man and the evil fate of the greater part of the race, of the primacy of the Satan of this world, of the essential vileness of matter, of a malevolent Demiurgus subordinate to a benevolent Almighty, who has only lately revealed himself, faulty as they are, appear to me to be vastly nearer the truth than the 'liberal' popular illusions that babies are all born good, and that the example of a corrupt society is responsible for their failure to remain so; that it is given to everybody to reach the ethical ideal if he will only try; that all partial evil is universal good, and other optimistic figments, such as that which represents 'Providence' under the guise of a paternal philanthropist, and bids us believe that everything will come right (according to our notions) at last."

You might find this article both relevant and interesting, if you can bring yourself to both read it and seriously think about what is being said:

[Link: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu...]

re: #29 noshariaincanada

and also re: #22 Salamantis

perhaps the right model for the spread of islam is something that falls into the realm of epidemiology.

The important thing to note is that chances of either islam or christianity being 'true' are exactly the same. The study of religious propagation as following the model of a disease is nonetheless an interesting idea.

re: #207 Salamantis
Thank you 'mantis, for your helpful comments on australopithecines, I apologise for posting misleading information.

Futayma's mistake is more than a little error, it's good evidence for the desire being wish to the thought. A tendency we are all too often guilty of, I acknowledge.

As to eugenics, I don't agree at all - nor does history. Those who regard man as merely animal are the most ready to speed the process up - and this of course undergirds current debate about cloning and embryo hybrids - the 'IDers' and creationists are hardly supporting artifical design (nor of course are many other conservative groups who differ).

The paper from Nature is interesting, but I don't see why you regard the incorporated HERV-K endogenous retroviral sequences as so persuasive, there are significant sequence differences twixt chimp and man. The rest is simple evidence of genetic homology - just like the sturctural homology which is the basis of classification, of the biochemical homologies also evident. It's the nature of distribution of the difference in these homologies (cytochrome c for example) between different species that lead Denton to doubt that natural selection provided the mechanism that gave rise to speciation.

Much of your evidence for falsification is interesting: for example you conflate general genetics and Darwinism, and seem unable to separate them. If you want to sharpen your answer think of one of Darwin's 19th century opponents, instructed in modern data - they'd be quite happy to cite sequence homologies to prove the case they made then against Darwin, especially when putative common ancestors do not prove closer than other stucturally related animals.

"Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population."

Ewww, does that mean that the muslims with their 5x population growth rate makes them more useful/successful when compared to Europe with their 1.3x growth rate? We're in big trouble if that's the case....

I posted too quickly.
I don't think anyone imagines that Darwinism will come crashing down at the discovery of flaws, but gaping wounds like abiogenesis, the lack of benefical mutations, and the lack of real mechanistic insights into how natural selection can account for organogenesis are all very telling.
I shall read you pinker article before resurfacing.
Farewell.

re: #193 jimmah

Dang - missed this one last night. Yes, you are misunderstanding me. He would know - he would have a memory of the event, what he wouldn't be able to give is an explanation as to why the event occurrred exactly when it did.

Then your god is not omniscient or is suffering from a divine strain of Alzheimer's.

re: #79 LudwigVanQuixote

G-d knows the future. By definition, nothing is random to Him even if it is completely random to us.

An infinite God is omnipresent both in space AND time. Therefore, it follows that time - a linear conceptualization by which humans measure duration - has no relevance to God. What we call the past, the present and the future are all now.

re: #211 ebed_melech

Thank you 'mantis, for your helpful comments on australopithecines, I apologise for posting misleading information.

Futayma's mistake is more than a little error, it's good evidence for the desire being wish to the thought. A tendency we are all too often guilty of, I acknowledge.

Haeckel did err, and intentionally so, but to a significant degree, ontogeny DOES recapitualte phylogeny. In fact, Stephen Jey Gould wrote an entire book about the subject:

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

And creationists themselves have been found guilty of carving dino and human footprints together in rocks.

As to eugenics, I don't agree at all - nor does history. Those who regard man as merely animal are the most ready to speed the process up - and this of course undergirds current debate about cloning and embryo hybrids - the 'IDers' and creationists are hardly supporting artifical design (nor of course are many other conservative groups who differ).

Those who have believed humans to be both body and soul have also showed a willingness to torture and even kill the former in order to save the latter. Any perspective can be abused when embraced by true believers.

The paper from Nature is interesting, but I don't see why you regard the incorporated HERV-K endogenous retroviral sequences as so persuasive, there are significant sequence differences twixt chimp and man. The rest is simple evidence of genetic homology - just like the sturctural homology which is the basis of classification, of the biochemical homologies also evident. It's the nature of distribution of the difference in these homologies (cytochrome c for example) between different species that lead Denton to doubt that natural selection provided the mechanism that gave rise to speciation.

I find the artifactual retroviral DNA sequence evidence extremely persuasive, in gfact, prohibitively so, and I am far from alone in that evali=utaion; in fact, it is shared by practically the entire community of paleovirologists. Do you know what really ties the whole thing up in a statistical bow? The fact that there are 3 BILLION base pairs in a human genome. For even ONE artifactual retroviral DNA sequence to have inserted itself into the exact same one of a BILLION AND A HALF possible insertion points in both the human and great ape genome would be staggeringly improbable, but for THOUSANDS of them to have precisely done so, without a SINGLE SLIP, establishes common ancestry beyond all sane or rational doubt.

Much of your evidence for falsification is interesting: for example you conflate general genetics and Darwinism, and seem unable to separate them. If you want to sharpen your answer think of one of Darwin's 19th century opponents, instructed in modern data - they'd be quite happy to cite sequence homologies to prove the case they made then against Darwin, especially when putative common ancestors do not prove closer than other stucturally related animals.

My answer is tailored to your question is tailored to the contemporary scientific situation as known, which includes Darwin, Mendel, Watson & Crick. I know that you'd rather contest the past of a century and a half ago with what is known today, but you're going to have to place your contemporary queries against contermporary understandings. Every single one of my examples would falsify evolutionary theory as it now stands, but you cannot fulfill a single one of them. You can marshall not a single shred of empirical counterfactual evidence against it. And why? Because evolutionary theory is an amazingly faithful model of the actually obtaining states and processes of affairs, and there's no getting around that millions-of-times-confirmed, brass tacks fact, no matter how much you might wriggle and squirm.

Ewww, does that mean that the muslims with their 5x population growth rate makes them more useful/successful when compared to Europe with their 1.3x growth rate? We're in big trouble if that's the case....

- sissyblue #212

Well, it should be obvious that natural selection as it applies to other species, doesn't accurately describes humans. Our physical abilities to run, jump, swim, hunt, hide, etc., no longer dictate our success or usefulness as individuals.

re: #52 Sharmuta

Genexer- I just want you to know I'm going through and dinging everything you've dinged in the opposite direction- well- except one.

I'm sure this will be deleted but at least I'm going to have my say.
I love coming here to littlegreenfootballs right up until the creationist kick that it has taken. Thread after thread mocking my God. It is obvious to me that some people have taken this topic and had fun with it and I've gotten a little tired of it.

So, when I saw yet another thread started on creationism, I dinged it to voice my disapproval. (Isn't that what it's for?). I didn't want to get into these weeds by arm wrestling a subject that will never end. You are trying to argue faith vs. science. There will never be an agreement. I thought dinging the article would let Charles know that some of us do not like this turn of discussion.

So, a few days later, I saw another thread and I tried to ding it. But, it just took me to the top of the page and didn't record my dings. Censorship? I do believe so.

That is where alarm bells went off. If we are to call ourselves conservatives, then we should - above all else - allow free speech. Letting it be known that perhaps not all of us agree with Charles is a good thing!

So, last night, again, I tried to ding the thread. So, in frustration, I thought I'd try a new tack, I dinged the view points in the comments. And, surprise, surprise, I am again being censored.

I am a life-long conservative who fight the daily battle every day on my home blog. I am not some nut, but I am being treated that way here.

You should all heed my warning, you are taking the dark path of liberalism by censoring disagreeing view points.

If my post is deleted, that will tell me all I need to know about the direction this website is taking and I won't bother you all anymore.

re: #213 ebed_melech

I posted too quickly.
I don't think anyone imagines that Darwinism will come crashing down at the discovery of flaws, but gaping wounds like abiogenesis, the lack of benefical mutations, and the lack of real mechanistic insights into how natural selection can account for organogenesis are all very telling.
I shall read you pinker article before resurfacing.
Farewell.

abiogenesis has to do not with evolutionary theory, but with another scientific discipline known as origins of life theory. the latter has to do with how life began; the former has to do with what has happened to it once it appeared and was confronted by environments.

Beneficial mutations are what are selected by the environment. Since species mutations require many generations in order to manifest, we must look for them in places where generations succeed each other rapidly, such as in fruit flies and bacteria. And indeed, Lenski's e. coli beneficially mutated an ability to metabolize citric acid.

Natural selection can indeed account for the beginnings of organs as well as for their elaborations. The evolutions of the eye and the flagellum are cases in point rather than arguments against, as Ken Miller, among many others, abundantly demonstrated, to Behe's dismay.

I other words, your gaping wounds do not actually exist; they are willfully pseudoreified mirages, wishful-thinking self-delusions, just like all other creationist criticisms of evolutionary theory that have so far appeared.

re: #85 Salamantis

The same principle is observed when one observes that the earth is not circling the sun, but rather, they are revolving around each other; it's just that the much more massive sun describes a much smaller revolutionary circle

But an orbit, nonetheless. If what you are saying is true - and it is either true or false - then the sun does, indeed, revolve around the earth. So I guess the Church in the 16th century was just as correct as Galileo, who maintained that the earth orbited a stationary sun and denied that the sun revolved around the earth. Apparently both the Church and Galileo were correct and incorrect.

As I recall, Pope John-Paul II formally apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for its part in l'affaire Galileo.

Now you can do your part: all formal apologies may be sent in writing or by e-mail to the following address:

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI PP.
00120 Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano
E-mail: benedictxvi@vatican.va

re: #218 Genexer

I'm sure this will be deleted but at least I'm going to have my say.
I love coming here to littlegreenfootballs right up until the creationist kick that it has taken. Thread after thread mocking my God. It is obvious to me that some people have taken this topic and had fun with it and I've gotten a little tired of it.

So, when I saw yet another thread started on creationism, I dinged it to voice my disapproval. (Isn't that what it's for?). I didn't want to get into these weeds by arm wrestling a subject that will never end. You are trying to argue faith vs. science. There will never be an agreement. I thought dinging the article would let Charles know that some of us do not like this turn of discussion.

So, a few days later, I saw another thread and I tried to ding it. But, it just took me to the top of the page and didn't record my dings. Censorship? I do believe so.

That is where alarm bells went off. If we are to call ourselves conservatives, then we should - above all else - allow free speech. Letting it be known that perhaps not all of us agree with Charles is a good thing!

So, last night, again, I tried to ding the thread. So, in frustration, I thought I'd try a new tack, I dinged the view points in the comments. And, surprise, surprise, I am again being censored.

I am a life-long conservative who fight the daily battle every day on my home blog. I am not some nut, but I am being treated that way here.

You should all heed my warning, you are taking the dark path of liberalism by censoring disagreeing view points.

If my post is deleted, that will tell me all I need to know about the direction this website is taking and I won't bother you all anymore.

You confuse political conservatism with religious literalist fundamentalism, and you confuse an anti-idiotarian site with both of them. It's just your sacred ox's turn to get gored. Nobody gets to criticize other peoples' irrationalities while insulating their own. Nobody is mocking 'your' god; deity doesn't belong to any person, anyway. But perhaps you should rethink your conception of deity, if you perceive it to be too weak to withstand the discovered evidence, facts and truths of empirical science. That perceived weakness could simply be because you are demanding that your conception apply not only to the world of belief, but also to the world of knowledge - but that is not faith's realm, and to attempt to force it to apply there is to confuse the two realms, and to do both realms injustice. Just like the injustice of forcing sectarian religious dogmas to be taught in public high school science classes.

re: #150 Salamantis

Or maybe there are actual limits to empirical determination that are not a matter of limited cognitive capacity, or even the limits that exist as a result of our having to use one type of matter/energy to measure another type, but instead have to do with the way the universe inherently is. At least, that's what physicists have proven.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying: physicists have proven that there are actual limits to empirical determination that are not a matter of limited cognitive capacity by using their...limited cognitive capacity.

re: #220 NemoParticularis

But an orbit, nonetheless. If what you are saying is true - and it is either true or false - then the sun does, indeed, revolve around the earth. So I guess the Church in the 16th century was just as correct as Galileo, who maintained that the earth orbited a stationary sun and denied that the sun revolved around the earth. Apparently both the Church and Galileo were correct and incorrect.

As I recall, Pope John-Paul II formally apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for its part in l'affaire Galileo.

Now you can do your part: all formal apologies may be sent in writing or by e-mail to the following address:

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI PP.
00120 Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano
E-mail: benedictxvi@vatican.va

Well, Galileo was FAR more correct than was the Roman Catholic Church, for, being a function of the different masses of the earth and the sun, the circle inscribed by the sun is tiny, but the circle inscribed by the earth is massive.

re: #222 NemoParticularis

re: #150 Salamantis

Or maybe there are actual limits to empirical determination that are not a matter of limited cognitive capacity, or even the limits that exist as a result of our having to use one type of matter/energy to measure another type, but instead have to do with the way the universe inherently is. At least, that's what physicists have proven.

NP: Let me see if I understand what you are saying: physicists have proven that there are actual limits to empirical determination that are not a matter of limited cognitive capacity by using their...limited cognitive capacity.

Yep. Sometimes it is within the limits of our cognitive capacity to prove that some things cannot be ascertained regardless of cognitive capacity. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in physics is one such case; Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics is another.

re: #221 Salamantis

Like I said, I am not here to debate my faith. My post was in regards to censorship with thread dinging. If some of you thought that the updings numbers on the creationist threads were the real deal, you could be wrong.

Now, I could be wrong, perhaps it's just my computer that doesn't allow me to ding creationist threads. Who knows? ;)

Isn't it grand that darwin's theory is being killed off for not producing enough offspring ? Who could come up with a more fitting, if tragic, end ?

Not that I'm in favor of it or anything.

re: #221 Salamantis

That perceived weakness could simply be because you are demanding that your conception apply not only to the world of belief, but also to the world of knowledge - but that is not faith's realm, and to attempt to force it to apply there is to confuse the two realms, and to do both realms injustice. Just like the injustice of forcing sectarian religious dogmas to be taught in public high school science classes.

An excellent reminder of what started all of this.

re: #161 Salamantis

If you're truly all-powerful and all-knowing, they can't be on a collision course without your not only knowing about it, but choosing it, beforehand - in fact, knowing about and choosing everything that ever happens in the Universe at the moment the Universe began. In which case, why actually make the damn thing? Living through such a Universe, from the Deific perspective, would have to be like sitting down and watching a rerun of a memorized movie.

Your analysis assumes that God has a past, a present and a future. That which is omnipresent would necessarily exist everywhere in time as well as in space. You have to think outside the four dimensional box.

And either you can change the movie at will, in which you cannot know how it goes in advance, or you know how it goes in advance, which means you cannot change it at will. In other words, either Omniscience or Omnipotence would have to fall by the wayside.

Your argument errs in that it neglects to include omnipresence among the attributes of God; if he is omnipresent in space then he is omnipresent in time - in which case, linear chronology is irrelevant.

re: #226 tomcp

Isn't it grand that darwin's theory is being killed off for not producing enough offspring ? Who could come up with a more fitting, if tragic, end ?

Not that I'm in favor of it or anything.

Actually, affluence, rather than religiosity, seems to be the determining factor; the better off people are, the less kids they have, regardless of religion. But then again, affluence does tend to be a function of education. Poorer people tend to have more children in tribal and rural settings in order for them to help support the family.

Of course, we could always re-subjugate women, force them to remain barefoot and pregnant during their fertile years, sell them to those who can afford to buy them and rear their children, and breed warriors and broodmares like ants. But we decided against that when we told the Mormons they couldn't to it back in the 1890's (although some breakaway sects still try). And I don't think women in America wanna go back a hundred years. Nor do I think that either sex would be willing to outlaw contraception. And I, for one, don't feel like owning anybody like chattel.

re: #223 Salamantis

Well, Galileo was FAR more correct than was the Roman Catholic Church, for, being a function of the different masses of the earth and the sun, the circle inscribed by the sun is tiny, but the circle inscribed by the earth is massive.

You are arguing a difference in degree, not kind. The fact is that the sun does revolve around the earth.

In other words: E pur si muove.

Let me know when you you've sent that letter or e-mail, okay?

re: #224 Salamantis

Yep. Sometimes it is within the limits of our cognitive capacity to prove that some things cannot be ascertained regardless of cognitive capacity. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in physics is one such case; Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics is another.

Okeedokee then. If that is what you want to believe, have at it.

re: #229 Salamantis

Actually, affluence, rather than religiosity, seems to be the determining factor

Actually it is one of a number of determining factors. In this country, other factors include excessive taxation and a high cost of living. For many couples it is simply too expensive to have more than one or two children.

re: #228 NemoParticularis

re: #161 Salamantis

If you're truly all-powerful and all-knowing, they can't be on a collision course without your not only knowing about it, but choosing it, beforehand - in fact, knowing about and choosing everything that ever happens in the Universe at the moment the Universe began. In which case, why actually make the damn thing? Living through such a Universe, from the Deific perspective, would have to be like sitting down and watching a rerun of a memorized movie.

Your analysis assumes that God has a past, a present and a future. That which is omnipresent would necessarily exist everywhere in time as well as in space. You have to think outside the four dimensional box.

If a deity existed outside of time, it wouldn't be able to think, for that requires passage from concept to concept, and movement requires time. besides which, it wouldn't be able to think anyway, because it could not contain imperfection. Deific thought could not move from imperfection to perfection, from perfection to imperfection, or from imperfection to imperfection, because any of those would place inperfection within the deific mind. However, thought could not move from perfection to perfection, either, because perfection is singular. The omnipresence also presents difficulties. Perception can only occur from a perpective; perspectives only occur when the perceiver is in a location nonidentical with the perceived. Bit an omnipresent deity would be everywhere, and thus could not perceive from anywhere, since there would be no location nonidentical with the perceived from which the deity could perceive. Being omnipresent, it would be present in all possible objects of perception, This being the case, it could not perceive any of them, since it could not do so unless it wasn't them.

And either you can change the movie at will, in which you cannot know how it goes in advance, or you know how it goes in advance, which means you cannot change it at will. In other words, either Omniscience or Omnipotence would have to fall by the wayside.

Your argument errs in that it neglects to include omnipresence among the attributes of God; if he is omnipresent in space then he is omnipresent in time - in which case, linear chronology is irrelevant.

Read above for the logical conundrums within which this snarls us. In fact, there can be no such thing as a lack of spatiotemporality; Einstein was correct about this in a fundamental level. Space and time or not separable things, even in our imaginations.

A spaceless time must be infinitesimal; that is, it must lack the three spatial dimensions. But worldly consciousness, somatic consciousness, and imagination, are perspectival; they observe their objects from positions that are not identical with the positions of their objects. To perform such an observation is to establish two points, that of observer and that of observed, which delineate a line, which is a spatial dimension.

A timeless space must be instantaneous; that is, it must lack duration. But the establishment of a spatial perspective requires presence to succeed absence, and the co-presence of observed and observer entails their simultaneity. Sucession and simultaneity are temporal distinctions.

re: #224 Salamantis

Yep. Sometimes it is within the limits of our cognitive capacity to prove that some things cannot be ascertained regardless of cognitive capacity. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in physics is one such case; Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics is another.

Okeedokee then. If that is what you want to believe, have at it.

It isn't a matter of belief; these things have been rigorously proven.

re: #230 NemoParticularis

You are arguing a difference in degree, not kind. The fact is that the sun does revolve around the earth.

In other words: E pur si muove.

Let me know when you you've sent that letter or e-mail, okay?

A massive difference in degree still means that Galileo was vastly more correct than was the Pope who forced him to lie.

re: #234 Salamantis

re: #224 Salamantis

Okeedokee then. If that is what you want to believe, have at it.

It isn't a matter of belief; these things have been rigorously proven.

Ummmm...yeah...by minds with limited cognitive capacity. LOL.

NP: Okeedokee then. If that is what you want to believe, have at it.

Sal: It isn't a matter of belief; these things have been rigorously proven.

NP: Ummmm...yeah...by minds with limited cognitive capacity. LOL.

Limited is a relative term. Does 1 + 1 = 2? If A contains B and B contains C, does A contain C? If either A or B is true and A is false, does that mean that B must be true? Why? Or are your cognitive capacities too limited to recognize these statements as true, or to prove them? I don't know how limited YOUR cognitive capacities are, but I have been through both Godel's and Heisenberg's proofs, and they are indeed quite rigorous. If you wish me to recommend books you may obtain in order to go over them yourself, I will be only too happy to do so. They are, however, far from short or simple, so they may require you to learn some things, and to spend some time.

Here's a little brain teaser for you; it's easy, but it's fun:

A cubed + B cubed + C cubed = D cubed.
A is prime.
Find A.

re: #225 Genexer

Like I said, I am not here to debate my faith. My post was in regards to censorship with thread dinging. If some of you thought that the updings numbers on the creationist threads were the real deal, you could be wrong.

Now, I could be wrong, perhaps it's just my computer that doesn't allow me to ding creationist threads. Who knows? ;)

I'm sorry to inform you that you are not being persecuted, and you are not being "censored." If you click one of those buttons before the page finishes loading, it jumps to the top of the page because the Javascript event handlers have not been installed yet.

I know it may be easier to believe that I'm sneaking around and changing the numbers, but those updings on the pro-evolution threads are genuine.

Here's another: prove that the fallacy of denying the antecedent is equivalent to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

re: #225 Genexer

Like I said, I am not here to debate my faith. My post was in regards to censorship with thread dinging. If some of you thought that the updings numbers on the creationist threads were the real deal, you could be wrong.

Now, I could be wrong, perhaps it's just my computer that doesn't allow me to ding creationist threads. Who knows? ;)

What the hell are you talking about. I just went back and checked every single creationism thread for the past 5 days to make sure, and guess what? My memory was correct, and your name is right there along with all your other sad down-dinging brethren, and it has been on this one since the first time I looked at this thread yesterday. So please stop with the false-martyrdom, fake-censorship whining.

When confronted by a creationist fanatic I have but one thing to say. "Your God must be a pathological lier and trickster, else why would He bury so much evidence of evolution in various layers of deep geologic formations?"

Thread after thread mocking my God.

- Genexer

It's quite a leap to call topics decrying topics related to attempts to insert religion into the science classroom "mocking your God".

I don't think anyone is doing that, unless you consider simply being agnostic or atheistic as a mockery of your God.

There are plenty of Christian fundamentalists on these topics who have, by their attempts to justify placing unprovable religious ideas in the science classroom, been mocking the very idea of science and the foundations of rational thought.

In fact, people have repeatedly stated that the idea of evolution and Biblical belief are not mutually exclusive, unless you're a Biblical literalist.

Ugh, should say ". . .to call topics related to attempts. . " in #243.

Morning.

re: #225 Genexer

Like I said, I am not here to debate my faith. My post was in regards to censorship with thread dinging. If some of you thought that the updings numbers on the creationist threads were the real deal, you could be wrong.

Now, I could be wrong, perhaps it's just my computer that doesn't allow me to ding creationist threads. Who knows? ;)

Why did you lie in this post? You have hit the minus button on every single pro-evolution thread, and not one of your ratings has been rejected. The evidence is right there for everyone to see -- just click the number and you'll see who rated and how.

Maybe you didn't know about that feature, so you figured you could lie without being caught at it?

re: #245 Charles

Well, I was wrong, it was my computer. When you first started these threads, i would ding it. Then later on, it would bring me back up to the page. It now seems I mistakingly thought you were doing that on purpose. Later on I would go back and try to ding it and it would allow me to. I mistakenly thought you had put a moratorium on comments in the beginning and then later allow it.

I was wrong and I apologize. I am relieved to see that there is no censorship like I thought there was. It is surprising, however, that you know who dings what. A bit Big Brotherish but that's your right, it's your site.

I will now stop dinging creationist threads because you have explained the problem. It was my impatience of my computer loading. I am sorry. Forgive me?

re: #192 ebed_melech

Almost as lacklustre as Sharmuta's claim that T rex soft tissues and red cells must be bacterial slime, because they're 64 million years old!

Not my claim- I was linking someone else's claim. Why do IDers constantly feel the need to misrepresent their opinions and positions so frequently?

re: #246 Genexer

Uh- any of us can see who dings what. Click the number- you can see, I can see- any registered member of LGF can see. Mighty nice of you to offer an apology laced with an insult.

Well, it looks like I have another apology to make. I didn't realize that everyone can see who dings what. I thought it was only moderators. I've been making a lot of assumptions here and I will give myself a spanking and go into the corner for punishment....

re: #241 JamesWI

He's just hankering for martyr points.

re: #249 Genexer

Well, it looks like I have another apology to make. I didn't realize that everyone can see who dings what. I thought it was only moderators. I've been making a lot of assumptions here and I will give myself a spanking and go into the corner for punishment....

It's a bitch to get caught in your lies, isn't it....

Kind of like what happens to the Discovery Institute on a regular basis. Of course, they appear not to be as contrite as you about it. I attribute that to a conscience, which you apparently have, and they obviously lack. That implies to me that you may be teachable....