He's on his way to Oklahoma (no, that's not what rouses my envy), and an Oklahoma legislator has proposed a resolution to condemn him.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
Wow. This from the same crowd that gets all fluttery and happy at "academic freedom" bills — they want to kick Richard Dawkins out of the whole state. I thought I was the scary one when I was the guy getting kicked out of a mere movie theater.
- Log in to post comments
Louis, one of the advantages of the college I went to for my secondary education in the sixties was that apart from Caerwyn James we also had two other ex Welsh internationals as teachers and coaches. We even hosted the Fijians when they toured Wales and played against them for fun when they trained with us. FSM I feel old remembering all that :)
Pete,
I presume that you are referring to PZ's disposal, and Cook's removal, of pieces of cracker that had some magic booga-booga words said over them as incitement and hatred?
If so, you are an irredeemable idiot.
It is, was, remains, and always will be just a fracking cracker. No matter what you believe to the contrary (unless you have some, you know, EVIDENCE, which we all know you don't), and no matter how offended it made some people.
Just in case you doubt me, would you like it if I arbitrarily applied the same "standard" of "incitement and hatred" to you? Let's see shall we:
Your eschewing of reason and the basic discoveries of the Enlightenment is tantamount to condoning acts of utter atrocity. The secular humanist ideals derived from that period (that, before you go there, demonstrably did not rest on judeo-christian-islamic footings. They were derived ab initio as it were. Not absent of history, but broken free from its confining ideologies) are things you, in your judgemental sanctimony clearly don't share. Your continual refusal to learn, or even attempt to understand even basic science or philosophy, and your swaggeringly arrogant lack of humility in the face of millennia of rational effort by millions of people, all of which has been demonstrated to be in concert with the dispassionate, unbiased, careful data supplied by rational interrogation of the universe (something I should remind you no religion or cult of personality or dogmatic ideology has EVER managed), constitutes nothing less than an act of wilful and pernicious hypocrisy and an act of intellectual barbarism.
Your behaviour is an abrogation of the duty laid upon us all by every act that has lead the human species to struggle out the kind of Dark Ages governed by fear, superstition and naked self interest you persist in attempting to return to.
And it's fucking annoying!
Now does that application of "incitement and hatred" sound fair to you? Because I'll bet a pound to a pile of pigshit I could make a vastly better stab at defending it than you could your claim.
Louis
It doesn't deal with empirical facts and so cannot be treated in the same manner.
So, it's totally the same if you ignore the fact that it's completely different.
Praise the Lord!
Trolls are like monsters in slasher films. Just when you think it is over... SURPRISE!
No Pete I'm asking you what are the equivalent givens you are referencing? That feels like you are sidestepping my question so as not to have to answer it.
But ok as long as you admit they aren't actually dealing with anything based in reality. Only with stories in a book. Like literature.
But that brings up the question. What are the reviewing for? Consistency with the Bible? Which version? Which contradictory story in the Bible?
Seems to me using theological "peer review" in the same sentence as scientific peer review is a bit dishonest.
They are nothing alike.
So I'm still curious. Why do you think they are similar?
Woot!
Louis - I enjoyed your written smackdown, and want a ticket to the live performance. There will be one, won't there? I can easily get to london (direct flights and everything) and I have heaps of miles I can use! I can't wait!
Rev. BDC, sounds to me like what Pete On Crack calls peer review is actually more like proof reading and fact checking against relevant documents than actual peer review. Why I am not surprised that he erroneously tries to conflate the two.
Louis,
I would have no problem with the act in and of itself (I am no longer a literalist in that sense). But it was publicised in the very same church at the time and then he refused to relinquish it. An act of provocation if there ever was one. There are codes of behaviour/standard of practise that one is forced to adhere to in certain situations. If you go into a temple and refuse to take off your shoes you have broken this contract and I would consider that deliberate incitement (they might well be escorted out by the authorities). Should you have the opportunity to refuse to go in at the door to the temple? Yes, but what Cook did was inexcusable.
Rev. I think Pete simply misspelled...
it's Theological pee-er review. They all get round a bucket, piss into it, and read the divination from the color, or smell, or the distillate, or evaporate, or something.
It's that English pronunciation screwing everything up, methinks!
I'm also female, older and can work up a good dudgeon when required. As I also happen to think Petey is a stupid bloody git. I would be glad to be invited to join a gruesome---- quartet?
There are laws that govern the universe that go unquestioned in science(you start with a premise). It is in that sense that I was referring to an equivalence. You don't debate the underlying issue the conclusion based on the things considered to be matters of fact.
Hi Pete! That would be a gruesome quartet. Then quintet, sextet, septet etc. Some how I think this could be more of a gruesome orchestra with full choir and audience participation.
HTHS!
Blueelm,
I have no desire to draw a line in the sand between me and everyone elde.
Pete the moron Rooke - FYI, there is a book out now for you to read on this very subject. It's called 'The End of Biblical Studies' by Hector Avalos.
I'm having a hell of a time wading through it, but you being so extra smart Pete, should have no problems reading it.
Now let's hear your excuse to dismiss the book, and it's author.
I've always wanted to be part of a sextet, but my wife won't let me
8-P
It sounds interesting, why are you finding it trying?
Reminds me of when Bill Hicks said that there are some "very dark areas of humanity out there."
I just hope that Richard makes it out alive.
Pete, failed scholar:
from the book's 'blurb':
Please list two of these laws (so I can be sure we're on the same sheet of music re: exactly what you mean).
Too late for that, you drew that line a long time ago.
Also, Rookie, it seems you hurt some people's feelings by not including including them in your "hate filled group". You really do not pay much attention, do you? Stupid bloody git.
Pete,
You have broken the contract of actually using your reason. The rational, reason based products of the Enlightenment that grant you life (and that is a fact beyond reasonable doubt) are dismissed airly by fideists such as yourself. If I grant your claim of "incitement and hatred" against Cook (and I do not), how can I fail to charge you similarly?
Louis
Do you think these "unquestioned laws" came about absent empiricism? These laws were a question at one time but were elevated to law status after being subjected to the rigors of the scientific method.
You still are not answering my question but instead are dancing around it.
What actual "laws" (your word) in theology are equivalent to those used in science? What method of testing them is equivalent, or even close to the process I mentioned (though highly simplified) above?
I'm having a hard time parsing that. Can you please make it a bit clearer?
Tony,
That really isn't humorous (in any way whatsoever).
I guess you need to tell me what "laws" in science you are referring to so we can be clear we aren't dealing with a straw-man as well.
Yes, it was garbled.
You debate the conclusion, not the underlying matters of fact that it rests on. IF-THEN Except in science the fundamentals are considered to be unquestionable (even though science is forced to ask how/what and not why).
Oh Noes!
Pete doesn't find me funny!
I think I should simply end it all now. There is no hope. No joy. No possible reason to continue on the mortal coil.
(except, perhaps, Watchmen. I promised my son I'd take him. And we have the book-party for the school at the local B&N on Sunday. then there's the band practice - need to support that. Can't let all those kids be disappointed)
Oh well. I shall just have to shoulder the burden and carry on.
I do not think that Tony was trying to be funny. Just showing that you are a stupid bloody git.
Bullshit Pete. Tell everyone here you think they're gruesome or I shall fork you again.
Louis,
I have no spoken or unspoken contract with you.
Keep in mind that Oklahoma is one of the two states where cockfighting is still legal - we're not talking about a civilized society here.
******** Pete. Tell everyone you think... blah, blah, blah, blah blah
Pete,
No, you're right you don't. But then that is irrelevant. The contract, both spoken and unspoken, is with society at large, the community of people pursuing intellectual goals (of which you claim to aspire to be a member) and yourself.
All of which are far harsher taskmasters than I am.
Your weaselling is noted.
Louis
Pete me boy. You said you were going in #492. Lying and bullshitting again? Your almost zero credibility is now zero. You offer us nothing.
Can I be gruesome too? I feel left out.
Louis
Pete - I'm finding it difficult because I have a limited education, having been crippled by fundamentalism for decades.
You are on a fucking public blog. Anything that is posted can be commented on. As I recall, no one had a spoken or unspoken contract with you yet you showed up here. Go figure.
Also, it was you who asked Louis where he lived.
Bloody stupid git.
That makes absolutely no sense. I'm not arguing that simple sensibility is being offended. The two situations are in no way analogous.
Petey - you don't get it.
In science the fundamentals can be (and are) questioned too. It's just that to do so your new definitions need to also support all of the pre-existing experiments and data, and they need to do so with more predictive power and more accuracy.
Relativity was just one such transformative change. QM was another. The discovery of quarks still another.
Go read Avalos. Then come back and tell us your fundamentals are still as solid.
Sweet baby jeebus what is happening here? I'm just about ready to put money on the idea that Pete is nothing more than a perl script run horribly amok.
Louis you're exceedingly gruesome. ;)
@ Nerd of Redhead #533:
Again I find myself in the terrible position of having to vehemently disagree with a respected poster.
Pete's credibility has, since his arrival, never raised above zero and he has (like his ideological ilk) never offered anything so benign as nothing. The contributions of the Petes of this world are negative, damaging and injurious to reason. His existence is an affront to all thinking people by virtue of the actions he deems fit to waste his mental faculties, such as they are, on.
After all, if it's fair that Pete hold others to ridiculous jumped up standards, it's only fair that we can all play.
;-)
Louis
I thought you were fucking off?
You seem to have heard "encore" when the actual chant was "nomore".
What's the point, no good argument, nothing interesting to say, tedious wounded pride on display...and not one of us a jot closer to Jesus.
Apologetics fail.
We have laws to guide what can and cannot be said/done/acted upon etc. in society at large.
I am arguing that this burden becomes far greater (not necessarily the burden of law) in more private contexts (e.g. churches) particularly when you violate/oppose the sole aims of those in said context
&c.
As a former, temporary Oklahoman ('96-'02), I feel that some counterbalance is in order here.
Just as the map is not the territory, the majority of inhabitants is not the state. As many have noted above, Oklahomans are a diverse bunch, and include some very fine people and excellent scientists (Vic Hutchison @375 can serve as an example of both). Even the god-deluded are by and large the salt of the earth (redneck yahhoos, politicians, and other obvious exceptions notwithstanding).
As for the land itself, the arbitrary borders of Oklahoma contain more biodiversity than any other state but California. The reason for this is an amazing ecological gradient from the southeast corner (Gulf coastal plain with alligators and anoles) to the northwest (high desert with horned lizards and cactus), with various grasslands and forests in between. The Wichita Mountains is one of the most beautiful areas in North America, and the Nature Conservancy's Tallgrass Prairie Preserve is the largest functioning chunk left of an all-but-gone uniquely North American ecosystem.
I was happy to get out, as my family fit in rather poorly with the dominant culture, but I liked a lot of things about it too (2 species of box turtles! alligator snappers and paddlefish! the ancient Arbuckles Mountains! even Eskimo Joe's!).
Please do not judge the place by its elected representatives, capitol city (yuk), and I-40 right-of-way.
Pete,
Neither am I arguing that simple sensibilities have been offended. Learn to read. It will make a nice change.
Louis
Being an official member of The Gruesome Trio, I declare that anyone who wants to also be an official member is free to join. I am being presumptuous in stating this but I doubt that Patricia and Nerd would object.
Nothing in Science is unquestionable. The difference is you must back it up.
You can question Archimedes' principle or Boyle's Law, but you must show how they are wrong.
How does theology self check against itself? How do you know if you are wrong? What in theology is equivalent to a scientific law and how did it become that way. What process did you use to get to that law and how did you self check?
When you debate the conclusion of something in theology what facts are you using that are given?
Lee Picton you're exquisitely gruesome! ;)
Thanks Patricia!
And on that note I am going to go and spend some quality time with some chums and some beers.
A pleasant evening to all!
Louis
As an atypical Oklahoman (democrat, college educated, evolutionist), I'm really sick of this state's attitude that if the majority doesn't like it, it MUST be horrible and evil and should not even exist within our borders (if at all!).
I would be more proud to be Oklahoman if they'd recognize that it's OK to have opinions that vary from the majority's.
Like what? I'm a scientist, and I'd love to start questioning these laws/premises. If I do, that'll be a breakthrough. I'll even give you heaps of credit. So, please, let me know.
But what laws in science are you thinking of as being beyond question?
You know of their existence, or you wouldn't have mentioned them. Which ones are they?
Thanks Janine, I was getting worn out granting gruesomes. Now I can go make some of that chai stuff. :)
How does theology self check against itself? How do you know if you are wrong?
As far as I know you don't. My experience with theology is that you forever question, and then come to some sort of personal revelatory conclusion. You never really know though because ultimately it us "unanswerable." Mercifully, not everything operates like that.
bah blocky quotey faily
We have a Gruesome quorum. Gruesomes all around.
Pete,
I'll simplify this as I did run a string of questions above (though all were getting at the same thing).
How does theological peer review self check to ensure that it is correct? In what way is that similar to the scientific model of peer review?
No, it was addressed to Louis.
Rev,
the basic scientific laws. There is after all a disjunction between macro level laws and the laws governing the micro (particle forces etc.). I'm not a scientist so I am unsure of the exact issue I'm referring to here. Perhaps others know what I'm talking about. Scientists are still searching for that all-encompassing law that governs everything.
Louis, I have been know to bow to the facts, and you are correct, Pete has never had above zero credibility. (Every time I try be semipolite I get called on it. Good job folks.)
Also, I concur with Janine of the many epithets, that any and all can join in on the fun.
Is it possible for theology to have primary sources as in history?
You are, I suspect, getting at the disjunction between GR and the various incarnations of quantum mechanics (QCD, etc.): specifically, how to reconcile fundamentally quantized things and gravity (which seems to require, heretofore, a _continuous_ spacetime to work). Fine; that's a huge ineffable in physics. In what sense, though, is it unquestioned or unquestionable?
Rev, in the same manner as philosophy. Some metaphysical questions do not concern the empirical (are above and beyond). The criteria for validity is, therefore, is it logically consistent, coherent, pragmatic, parsimonious etc. There are no absolutes like in mathematics. Science acts as though it is just as resolute as mathematics. It is closer to theology/philosophy.
Pete, There are no scientific laws that are beyond question. Nothing in science is beyond question. Anyone who asserts that something in science is off the table with respect to being reinterpreted (or acknowledged as having been a mistake) is hopefully not a scientist, because if they are, they missed the whole "science" part of graduate school.
I think Pastor Pete is drunk or something. He's babbling on about things he admittedly knows nothing about just for the sake of trying to get a rise out of people with his stupidity.
I'm saying that there may yet be a game changer behind/beyond the laws and that many assumptions based upon these laws may prove wildly inaccurate.
cfo identified part of the issue.
If you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you should be listening instead of talking.
Janine, it depends. The nature of religious experience is that it is by nature not verifiable given the privacy that characterizes the mind.
Petey has turned into a sort of Sarah Palin, a creature who just --- says things. I have no idea what he is trying to say in his last dozen or so posts of word salad. I have been accused of being hard of hearing, but as yet no one has ever fingered me for being hard of seeing. I see stupid, bloody, incoherent git.
Janine, I'll throw Hesiod's Theogony from somewhere in about 8th century BC into the ring. But I know there are older works than that. I just like it because ol' Zeus is so slutty.
Yeah, and the universe and everything in it, including your memories, may have been created by an omnipotent being ten second ago.
So. Fucking. What? Of what use is the proposition that there's an utterly undetectable supernatural being tinkering with things? It's scientifically vacuous.
Of course there may be a game-changer. Everyone is looking for it. However, for it to truly change the game, it'd better explain things consistently with all that we know. Most of the woo out there hasn't a chance of doing so -- the woo isn't reality-consistent. For us to call something a "law" in science means that it IS reality-consistent. They're NOT beyond questioning, precisely because they ARE laws.
Pete, unless something has physical properties it doesn't exist except in peoples minds. Period. End of story. Science is all about reality.
Take your metaphysical nonsense to a woo site. They will appreciate you. We just find you stupid and incoherent.
You got that right! It's all in your head!
A lot of theology is self-referential, and deals with scholarship within theology, and searches for consistency. Thus, you can have books written about Aquinas on epistemology, or the Greek influence on Paul, and you're pretty much doing the same sorts of study and analysis you'd do in other fields. There's no need to actually believe in God. Just make sure there are no internal contradictions.
You could do similar studies on the different forms and versions of astrology through the ages: what people said, how they worked, ways it influenced history, etc. Such scholarly study -- which can be checked on -- says nothing about whether astrology is actually true. But astrological studies done by people who also believe in astrology will veer off into Calvinball, or a self-referential game of Twister. They get into areas that can't be checked on, and invent elaborate systems of nonsense.
As soon as theology veers off the overlapping area of 'religious studies" and gets into deciding "what God really meant," I think it becomes as irrelevant and unscholarly astrological studies on "what the stars are really telling us."
I wan't referring to methodical scepticism.
We know that there are laws that govern the world that we have yet to identify. We have no explanation for the "why" question in reference to the laws believe that we have identified.
I'd love to start questioning these laws/premises.
No problem. Take any law or theory and decide that it is wrong. Your gut feeling will be a good guide here - best, perhaps to start with something you don't want to be true. It will also help if this is outside your speciality, indeed, the more ignorant of it you are, the better. It is vital that you have no practical knowledge - measurement, preparation of samples etc. This will make it much easier, later, to pretend that those who do are fraudulent or mistaken.
You will now spend several years (on average) mulling bitterly over the falsehood of this doctrine: it will be helpful if you nurture personal and professional grievances at this stage - academic ostracism later on will thus be guaranteed and can be blamed on the controversial nature of your views. Pore obsessively over out-dated research and rejected opinions - you will find plenty in the history of failed ideas to stimulate you.
Become involved in a religious or quasi-religious cult where your specific doubts are welcomed, and your apparent expertise in a related subject valued.
(Personal and religious crises will no doubt intervene here, and mental health may be a problem - work through it - madness can be a friend)
Finally, emerge triumphant, armed with spurious knowledge and opinions totally at variance with the so-called experts in the field. Remember Galileo and other mavericks later proved right. Ignore countless other nutters (except your chosen, dead authorities)
Remember, always, that rejection of your ideas is the ultimate proof that they are correct.
Et voila! You will be a professor of idiocy, a dean of dissimulation, or laureate of laxology.
Tell everyone! The Internet will be your greatest friend!
Now, how difficult was that?
at
I agree with what Sastra wrote. All of the Humanities derived from biblical scholarship. It says nothing of how empirically valid any of it is in actuality.
"Yes, but what Cook did was inexcusable."
I am amazed at the level of disapproval (to put it mildly) he levels at Cook, while at the same time he had only one brief statement about the RCC and the excommunication of doctors who saved a 9-yr-old's life.
That is one seriously screwed up worldview.
This doesn't answer my question Pete. You're just throwing our some sciencey sounding pyrotechnics but avoiding answering the question posed to you.
Ok. Now you are sort of defining it. Now give me an example of a theological problem that you can self check for logical consistency.
Now Pete were getting to your problem again.
Above you shifted the goalposts to change your assertion that peer review in science and theology were similar. You then defined theological peer review as dealing with non empirical and only concerned with logical consistency.
So now you are comparing science to theology and philosophy again. Which is it Pete? Does science deal with empirical based issues or only with issues of logical consistency in the theological sense.
#576 @ Lowell
"...not verifiable given the privacy that characterizes the mind."
Exactly. Which makes it just about the worst thing to base a moral system of values on, and the kind of thing that is different down to each individual, making it highly subjective, inconsistent, and ultimately unsuitable for application to a large group of people. Which means it's basically useless and meaningless.
Pete, we don't care about your opinion. Keep it to your own blog. You have nothing to offer us. So stop bothering us.
Pete seems to ignore Genesis which has gawd walking in the garden, with audible footsteps, a physical body, and being capable of conversing with humans.
(My chai sucks.)
Pete, regarding the sentence of yours that I copied right here above, can you falsify the follwing statement:
The why is because Odin made them that way.
Pete Rooke #568 wrote:
If you think you have a headache -- because you feel your head hurting -- then you do have a headache. It's not the sort of thing you can be mistaken about. Pain, by its nature, is the sort of thing that can be satisfactorily verified in private through direct experience (and it may be verifiable objectively as well.)
But, if you think that, because you have a headache, you have direct experience of a brain tumor -- and you can be confident about that because you can know that your head hurts -- then you're wrong. You might have a brain tumor -- or your headache might have some other cause. You could be sick, or have an allergy, or be under stress, or have an ice pick sticking out of the back of your skull.
Nobody doubts that people have 'religious experiences.' But the rest, is inference -- and could be mistaken. There are alternative explanations.
Rev, The ontological argument for the existence of God. It took 800 years for Kant to come along and say that existence is most definitely not a predicate! Genius.
There are modern versions of the argument but they are so different as to be indistinguishable.
I think I agree again, Sastra. Of course it doesn't.
As I said earlier:
People in societies since the dawn of civilization have reported similar experiences. One has to assume that humans have an underlying psychological disposition to experience these moments. Either it's inspired by God or it is an evolutionary bi product. Now even the people on here must admit that sociobiology is on extremely shaky ground. Any number of factors could account for these and the ultimate answer may be unknowable. For this reason, holding that, as people crudely say, God "done it" is every bit as tenable as other a priori reasoning concerning this issue. Their can be no reason stemming from empiricism in this matter because science cannot go that far.
#588 That should be entirely distinct (not indistinguishable).
What. The. Fuck?
Where is Australia? What date was the battle of Gettysburg? What is the Coriolis effect?
The answers to these and all such questions are found in the Bible and its analytical texts, are they?
Thinking isn't your first language, is it Pete?
No I cannot, Josh. But then I see logical positivism as having only limited value.
I mean only ("all of the humanities derived from Biblical scholarship") the method. I will extrapolate in a few minutes.
All right, all right, move along there. Troll feeding time is over!
Freedom of speech, provided it is not "offensive and contrary" to the opinions and views of the majority.
@589: you can't use "either it was inspired by God..." in a dichotomy because you haven't indicated what a "god" is or who this "God" person might be. I assume you mean "invisible friend"? Those aren't real.
Astronomy can tell you how the stars and planets move. It can tell you why the stars and planets move -- from a technical standpoint.
But it can't tell you The Why behind the movements of the stars and planets -- what it means to you, and for you. The social reasons and intentions are beyond its grasp. For that, you need to use astrology.
The supernova which exploded in a galaxy thousands of light years away did so because, as a Taurus, you must be on guard against having business dealings with friends for the next few months.
There's your "why."
Okay, but the proposition that we don't know everything and still have scientific discoveries to make is not controversial. Did you have some other point?
Who says there has to be a why? Just because you have a psychological desire for such an explanation doesn't mean one exists.
If you want to believe in an imaginary friend to fulfill that need, fine. Just don't presume to tell other people what to do and not do based on what that imaginary friend tells you and don't be surprised when people laugh at you.
About a dozen posts and Pete "total fool" Rooke lives up to his epithet. Nothing of cogency there. Just mumbo-jumbo that would make a new-ager wooist proud. Pete, we don't give a hoot about your opinions. Never have, never will. But you seem to think you opinion means something to us. What a deluded idiot you are to think that.
Studia humanitatis (humanities) are derived from studia divinitatis (concerning the divine). Textual study that marked biblical scholarship evolved into textual scholarship in general. Textual scholarship gave life to the humanities and birthed the literary, linguistic, cultural, and historical studies. All derivative from textual study of the bible. As the knowledge and study grew it expanded from studia divinitatis to encompass all of the humanities.
Well, I may be wrong but I thought this was because Jesus died for our sins. Isn't that what Biblical scholarship tells us?
Yeah, I guess I should have predicted that. This is why this conversation is so difficult to have, because when you make statements like:
the first thing that pops into a lot of our heads is "which god and how do you know which."
PZ, if Pete won't let you post at his blog, shouldn't you return the favor, golden rule and all?
Pete
So? We have brains suffused with lots of fun chemicals, many of which have analogs in the rest of nature - there is a vast pharmacology to which our minds are blissfully compatible (so long as you don;t mind the side-effects).
some humans, pete. only some humans. And why would that be so? psychology, or physiology. Is there really a difference (from an epigenetic perspective, not really). All we know is that some people are disposed to wingnuttery. Others less so. Some people are charismatic and influential. Others less so. If you get some charismatic, influential wingnut - their meme will be implanted in many others. and (in the words of Kurt) so it goes.
parsimony, and evidence, points at evolution. wingnut memes are the only source of god.
next?
* oh! BTW - that's by-product. a bi product is something made by a person who likes to both pitch and catch (as the old saying goes).
Oklahoma: where you are free to have an open mind, as long as it's as open as the government says it gets to be.
Well, that must be the explanation for the lack of knowledge and culture in ancient Greek and Eygptian cultures - no Bible. Fuck me, I'm learning stuff today!
Pete now you've fallen into the stoopid comparable to Ray Comfort. What a fool.
Sastra, the star could equally not have exploded. It exploded necessarily (and probably according to some law) but why?
Rev, my point was simply that science (I say this while communicating via the internet and in all humility) can, at a fundamental level also be seen as circular. I agree this circularity is more apparent in theology. The truth of the entire branch is often called into question. But in spite of this value can be found. The ontological argument is studied in modules on logic (premise-conclusion) etc and is tremendously beneficial irrespective of it's validity (that is not to discount the validity of the entire branch) which is why I get so upset when Dawkins suggests we can blithely bin all of theology and consign it to the scrapheap.
Pete Rooke #589 wrote:
I disagree. Positing God as a cause of religious experiences is not "every bit as tenable" as positing natural causes, just because it might be true. Not all possibilities are equal.
Generally speaking, if we have a plausible natural explanation for something -- or several plausible natural explanations -- we prefer these explanations to an explanation which posits a supernatural cause. We don't already have good scientific evidence for the supernatural, and there is no way to rule it out of anything. It's empty.
I'm specifically thinking here about things like ghosts. We know that noises in the attic can be made by many things. If you hear something go thump some night, you really do have to rule out the wind, or a cat, or some other normal occurrence, before assuming ghosts. Naturalism is the default. For ghosts you'd need something that could not be explained by any plausible natural mechanism -- including that you imagined the noise in the first place.
Natural explanations for religious experiences are plausible, reasonable, consistent with what we know about neurology, psychology, and sociology -- and they're also better at explaining the differences between the experiences. And I think that, when it comes to the supernatural, science can go as far in ruling out God, as ghosts. They both remain live possibilities only if you choose to seriously entertain the idea that "well, anything might be true."
I'm off to relax. I'm going to a party I have not been invited to, with people I don't agree with. I plan to tell them they're all wrong and then, should they have the nerve to disagree with me I will get angry, defensive and upset. I will long outstay my welcome - easy enough - promise to go and then not do so, and take the resentment they show me as absolute confirmation of just how damn right I was to come in the first place.
It sounds great fun. Coming Pete?
Did yu all knw that this was the SECOND resultion that was 'toned down' since the first one was even kookier.
Pete, we devise scientific laws to describe phenomina that we observe in nature. The number of laws we devise can maybe be taken as some kind of proxy for how well we understand nature, but to view nature as being somehow bound by the laws that we devise to describe it is really going off the rails. You're either using a different definition of law than we use in science or your misunderstanding what we do. The universe couldn't give two shits about whether or not we figure out gravity. Nature isn't bound by science. Science is how we figure out nature. Scientific laws are at best always going to be an approximation of the actual underlying principle that they are trying to describe. What you seemed to be saying teeters too close to the cliff of saying that science ever achieves Truth.
Petey:
Fucking Christ on a Stick - you've been on here all day. Worse you're repeating yourself. 589 is, I think, a copy of something stupid you said this morning. Toney @605 - he's heard that argument some time this morning. - ignored it then as well.
You still don't get the God of Gaps issue and you still have not a clue as to how science is different from religion. You know jack shit about science and have no evidence to support your tiresome posturing.
Really, dude, get some brew, get laid, and you will be much better off come morning.
For the rest - those with functioning brains - will you PLEASE not feed the trolls? This twit has been the driving force on this thread since 6 am MST.
Pete Rooke #600 wrote:
One of the significant factors involved in the gradual shift between the "Dark Ages" and the Renaissance in Europe was the infusion of Greek and Roman texts and methods of inquiry into the monasteries. These sources were even critical to the changes between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
I don't think you can ignore the vital importance of classical scholarship and learning when you look at how western civilization evolved. Without it, Biblical scholarship would have been very different.
A priori, is is every bit as tenable I think. | Obviously you want the simplest explanation, a posteriori (which we do), then we must look to naturalistic explanations. Can these ever provide the ultimate cause/explanation(whatever) (perhaps it isn't required and is meaningless). At the very least you have the same issue in both instances (of cause).
Well, since you said PLEASE, ok.
Don't worry I"m pretty sure they'd ban you to. Besides who the hell wants to go to Oklahoma any way?
OK, so perhaps you can say it was reborn (the textual study). They certainly weren't developed to that extent. I think the idea of studying something like the classics (thus proving your point) was foreign in all of history and was an original feature of biblical scholarship
My last two posts are somewhat incoherent...
Rookie:
NOTHING goes unquestioned in science.
Moron.
Tony:
It was funny!
Pete Rooke #609 wrote:
Are you asking for a physical reason -- or a psychological reason?
If it's the latter, then the question is meaningless. Why did the star want to explode? No answer. It's not the sort of thing that has "wants." Why did the universe want the star to explode? The universe -- reality -- does not appear to be the sort of thing that "wants" things to happen. The question is a poor question.
We only invoke it when we want to connect things to ourselves, and put our needs and desires at the center. People are content to have "why" questions about stars exploding answered in terms of physics and cosmology -- unless the star explosion has some effect on us which makes us either happy or sad. Then, all of a sudden, it turns into something done for or against our benefit.
"Why did it have to rain today, when I'm having a picnic?"
Answer: because the world and all its weather revolves around you, and has been gearing up for this deliberate blow to your self-esteem since the beginning of time.
Be very, very suspicious of this kind of answer.
How at a fundamental level do you see science as circular? You've hinted at this during this whole thread but I have yet to see you explain it.
You mentioned the laws but i think we've shot that down pretty substantially on the "unquestionable" assertion.
I'm still left wondering what you are referring to.
Pete Rooke wrote:
Pete, either you haven't actually read Dawkins' books, or you're simply lying; that isn't what Dawkins is saying at all.
He's happy for theology to exist, and religion as well (the well-known 'knitting' comment comes to mind); it's just that he doesn't want what is taught by religion to be retained when it goes against science or contemporary standards of ethics.
My own opinion is that religion certainly has its place - in the study of history.
Library of Alexandria ring a bell?
Yes, it was an answer that Russell famously gave.
Nevertheless, we do have a desire to ask why... I can seen the issue involving assuming a purpose but I'm not happy with "it just does" as an answer. We do after all possess consciousness and are capable of asking the question (again I hear the charge of solipsism). Perhaps, like religious experiences it boils down to whether this explanation has to be naturalistic or if this intuition can be divinely imprinted on our soul...
Yes, because I am someone who is unaware that I am a rain god.
"Ghost in the machine" dualism anyone?
Yes, SC. I am happy to consider it a rebirth rather than an original invention. I skipped over the ancients...
Rev, if you were to be methodical in your scepticism when conducting a scientific experiment you be go raving mad (start doubting the existence of an external world/and the existence of the self) and sit in a dark corner of the room muttering to yourself. When conducting a peer review there are some things (at the very least) that are taken for granted. It's in this context.
Pete Rooke #626 wrote:
Perhaps it boils down to whether or not we are willing to accept an answer which doesn't reinforce our deep, instinctual sense that we are cosmically special and important, and that the universe itself must relate to us like another person, because reality is a story about us.
We are special and important to ourselves. I think that is as self-absorbed as we should get. It's enough as it is.
The issue is that if there were a purpose then it *would* surely reinforce or shape these intuitions and beliefs we have. If there isn't a purpose why do we have these beliefs? I understand Dennett provides rather vague explanations (drawing conclusions from apples falling from trees/cause and effect/ect.).
Yes you've repeated this point Pete but I keep asking you
WHAT THINGS
EVERYTHING
CAUSE AND EFFECT/inductive inference in general (assuming that the past will be conformable to the present), the existence of an external world (as mentioned), the existence of other minds...AD NAUSEUM!!!
Pete Rooke wrote:
Obviously we can't test for solipsism, or Matrix-style simulations, but why do gods suddenly get to move into that same category? As I noted in another thread, it's only recently that theologians and apologists have pushed for their gods to be considered 'outside' science.
Your god in particular, Pete, has a long and documented history of interacting with the world in a physical sense - your holy book is full of accounts of Yahweh doing this and that. If he did not do those things then why are they in the bible?
To turn about and say, 'Yes, our god gave Moses the tablets with the commandments and sent manna from heaven and all the other things which showed he existed on the physical plan - oh, but that's different' is exactly why the expression 'shifting the goalposts' was coined.
More vague mumbo-jumbo from Pete. Pete, you seem to think we are too dumb to ask questions. We ask the questions. It is just that we accept answers like, "we don't know now, but we are working on it", "random chance", "mutation and natural selection", "shit happens", and my favorite, "that is an illogical question". Science doesn't need gods and assorted mumbo-jumbo to describe the universe. So it doesn't use god and other mumbo-jumbo. Science will never know the TRUTH, but it will approach the TRUTH, getting infinitely closer as time goes on. All without the need for your deity which only exists between your ears.
Pete Rooke #631 wrote:
For the same reason we "believe" that it rained on purpose to ruin our picnic, or the computer malfunctioned out of spite, or the sun shone on us because we are happy, and the world is pleased. We are social animals, who evolved to live in -- and negotiate -- a social environment. And our social tendencies tend to get over-active, and spill into everything.
And still, as we get older, we do generally come to recognize that the computer isn't "really" mad at us, and our cat can't really understand everything we say, and the world and all its weather does not really revolve around us, since the beginning of time. We usually think our way out of our instinctive intuitions and beliefs -- unless we decide to draw the line somewhere, because we want to hold on to the idea of the social cosmos.
Why does the nice elderly lady next door act as if her beloved and overfed poodle is just like a small human child, if it is not just like a small child, but just like a rather ordinary dog? Because when she thinks this way, it becomes a small child to her -- and she is satisfied.
Evolution is pure faith, actually more than religious faith:
Weaknesses:
1- It cannot muster a testable hypothesis (explanation) pertaining to the proposed mechanisms
2- It is too vague to be of any practical value- Variation? Variation to what exactly? No specifics have ever been produced.
Holes:
1- It cannot explain the physiological and anatomical DIFFERENCES observed.
2- No one even knows whether or not those afore-mentioned differences can be accounted for via genetic differences.
3- It does not attempt to explain ORIGINS and ORIGINS have a DIRECT impact on any subsequent evolution.
He's driving you mad Rev. BigDumbChimp. ;)
Is there not a sense which we can detach ourselves from such tendencies and come to the question via reason and rationality. It *truely* doesn't seem like an unreasonable (or better irrational) question to me. So I guess now I say that in spite of our beliefs might it not still be a viable question to ask, because it really doesn't appear meaningless to me?
OFT, boy are you wrong. Look in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Hundreds of thousands, and today maybe millions of papes backing evolution. Each paper contains evidence. No faith. Hard physical evidence and facts. So evolution is not faith with that type of backing.
Creationism and ID require faith, since they need the agency of a non-proven deity to operate. And they have no evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Thems the facts.
OFT,
Seriously, you are way out of your league. I hope you're ready to have your ignorance and denial given a savage beating.
Where's my popcorn?
Wowbagger,
If you imagine a God (the unmoved mover or whatever) sure;y being so fundamental it would exist in a different relation to the world. I can't really do the argument justice.
OFT #637 wrote:
The theory of evolution is actually very specific, and testable. But it doesn't "account for" a view of the world shaped by the belief that everything was created for the specific human beings who exist today. It's a bottom-up explanation -- and you want a top-down one.
It's not that you start with God. You start with Man. And that's ultimately where your faith rests.
Barb writes:
Let him talk about his atheism or his evolution belief without scorning the opposition.
He's not scornful. Seriously. Wanna see scorn? I can probably adjust your scorn-meter, you disengenous scorn-troll...
OFT:Bollocks.
Testable hypothesie? Provided, tested, passed.
Not vague. Of practical value. Specifics include all known living things.
Explains physiological and anatomical differences - see DNA, genetics etc etc
Yes. We. Do.
Does not attempt to explain origins.
Fucking moronic idiot. Why parade your stupidity? Whatever happened to humility outside one's own sphere of knowledge.
OFT ---> killfile
Does not pass Go.
Does not collect $200.
That's so adorable! A talking monkey! Right here on Pharyngula!
Pete Rooke wrote:
Which I'd be fine with - except that it's only a recent development, conveniently brought up in the complete absence of scientific evidence for any god. If Yahweh had always been described as such then it wouldn't be a problem.
But this nebulous god is far different from the god of the bible. Does that mean the bible is wrong about god? If so, what else is it wrong about? The commandments? Jesus?
I would have to appeal to religious experience and "personal" relationship with God. Transcendental experience.
Pete Rooke #639 wrote:
Asking whether there is an ultimate psychological "why" to everything isn't an unreasonable or irrational question. It's an interesting question, which is why we all ask it at some point.
But, I think that, when we do try to detach ourselves from our tendencies to anthropomorphize not just the universe, but everything more complicated than a rock, we end up with a universe which is not anthropomorphic enough to have a psychological "why" to it. That's not really what we expected -- which makes it an interesting answer.
In other words, a psychotic or delusional episode.
To keep us from going fucking insane when we do not have the tools/ technologies/empirical knowledge to solve an understand our reality.
Pareidolia? We're pattern seekers. We put patterns together even if there is no correlation, we invent stories as a stopgap when the analysis fails us. we anthropomorphize, we reify, we fabricate. We create fictions, abstractions, surreal absurdist narratives. We reflexively think from our own individual point of view. We delude ourselves into believing superstitions because it's an explanation that will quiet those constant nagging whys. Could it be a a survival mechanism? Nod your head. Superstition and reification is the default position when when there is no science (knowledge). You're still operating atavistically from the result of indoctrination into the socially sanctioned human constructs of religion, which pressure us all to believe, to varying degrees, in a magical supernatural world - explanations we should be past intellectually and technologically. That many still cling to these beliefs has more to do with the power of socialization and indoctrination of religions and the message of a fabled existance beyond our very difficult and short life spans - a way to deal with the utter unfairness of it all, as well as the prescriptive (invented) meaning and purpose.
Thank you for those who responsded politely, or even not so politely.
Please provide a single actual testable hypothesis for the theory of evolution, and the test of it and how it eliminates or reduces the probability of other possibilities.
Please also indicate why a failure to look at origins is not a flaw. It seems the origin of life has a direct bearing on the future of life.
Please also indicate the kinds of possibilities that are not possible within the theory of evolution, as it seems to explain any evidence rather glibly with further invented hypotheses as to how it operates.
DNA and genetics may explain physical differences, though there is a lot of murky water in the area. However, DNA and genetics are not evolution.
More info on the proposed resolution, the "critical analysis" bills that were narrowly defeated, and the speech by Dawkins:
I like West's pathetic, ""Where is a similar high-profile person debating him?" Assuming that he's not asking about a debate on evo-devo or something else that is legitimate science, then there is no similar "high-profile person" to debate junk "science." Just some dumb puppies like West.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
OFT, if you are pushing ID/creationism, you must show physical evidence for your deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. We don't have to defend evolution, you must prove yourself. Put up your proof positive or shut up. Proof negative against evolution means nothing about proving your theory.
E.V.,
I accept that there may be a sociological explanation for such beliefs. Would it be silly to ask of the reason for the soc. explanation... Both you and Sastra's explanation seem to converge on that point. Irrespective of this it doesn't seem to totally discount the possibility that it is a meaningful question. Ultimately, religion rests upon faith.
Which might be fine if there were only one god concept to choose from. But there isn't - all religions and sects have personal relationships and transcendental experiences. Beyond that, they are often very, very different; often to the point of contradiction.
If religions were limited to congregating people to have shared experiences of relationships with god and transcendental experiences then we wouldn't be at odds with it, but they don't. They make prescriptions - social, moral, ethical, scientific etc. - based on interpretations of the supporting literature.
Since I have no experienced God I have no idea whose concept he corresponds to - and until that happens, should I be following what I am led to believe are his rules? If so, exactly whose rules should I follow? Mormon Christianity? Catholic Christianity? Dutch Reformed? Hindu? Islam? German Neopaganism? The choices are myriad, and none of them (that I'm aware of at least) is very appealing.
They can't all be true. But they can all be false.
Pete (SBG) said:
Let me fix that for you:
Reminds me of the mental masturbation on "New Dimensions" on some NPR stations. Truth is for Philosophers. Science is based on observable facts. Give us something empirical Pete.
Stupid Bloody Git... I like that. :)
Patricia: Chai is tough. Sometimes I get good results, but it's worth trying some more
NoR, that's a rather contradictory attitude.
No, you're still under an obligation to defend evolution. Evolution is an assertive claim, and the burden is on the claimant to prove the claim.
I don't have to defend or assert creationism to question evolution. Evolution can be simply one more revealed faith, simply one revealed to a naturalist rather than a theologian. I don't have to prove the theologian's points to dispute the naturalist's.
What happened to "I don't know" as the scientific answer of record?
*shakes head slowly from side to side*
Temporally, earlier fossil organisms will generally be simpler than later organisms. For example, you would expect to see the development of single-celled organisms prior to development of multi-cellular organisms, creatures without an internal skeleton prior to those with, and creatures without brains prior to those with. (This is pretty general, of course.) Pretty much any finding that was contrary to these hypotheses would be a profound problem for the theory of evolution.
You don't demand an understanding of the origin of rocks to do geology, do you? That said, there is extremely fruitful work going on right now in both abiogenesis and the creation of artificial life, so my guess is that this shortly will no longer be an issue.
Rabbit fossils in the Cambrian. Dogs giving birth to cats (contrary to the standard creationist canard, such an event would be a clear repudiation of evolution, since change is not that rapid). The message "I made this. Signed, God" encoded in all organisms' DNA. Shall I go on?
Child, do you really think anyone is interested in trying to stuff several years of science education into your closed little mind? Do you really think that's the purpose of this web site? To teach an obnoxious little twit like you both some science and some manners?
Sheesh, they're coming out of the woodwork now, aren't they?
OFT, in science, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. The burden of proof is upon you to show that whatever alternate scientific theory to evolution you are claiming (which is behind your feeble attempts to make us defend it), you have to present the evidence to show you are right. Time to do so or shut up. Evolution with its myriads of papers stands as the only scientific theory of life until you present another. Preferably through the peer reviewed primary scientific literature.
We await your evidence.
That is so easy... Power. Control. Assimilation. Othering.
OFT:
If you are really interested in the answers to your questions, then read these:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
and for a single testable hypothesis,those at Berkeley suggest this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/guppy/low_bandwidth.html
However, if you think that your questions are potent weapons against the biologists who frequent this thread, then you are sadly mistaken.
Hey OFT,
Instead of us jumping through your hoops, I've got a better idea. Why don't you educate your fucking self?
Anyone whose irony detector (and bullshit detector, obviously) doesn't go off when reading "which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry" in the context of what the Bill wants to do is ridiculous and ignorant. What a hypocritical and ignorant piece of legislative bullshit.
(am I #666? If so, awesome!) :)
Peter:
To be clear: We are talking about social cohesion beyond primitive tribalism.
Well, DUH.
I really meant questions of purpose... Any way I am finally leaving now, until next time.
Thank you, Tulse
While you mention a hypothesis, it's not a currently testable one -- it's one judged merely by looking at circumstantial evidence. It's quite possible the fossil record is deceiving. If, for example, more complex creatures break down more quickly, we would see older simpler organisms and the "arrival" of more complex organisms later. The same is possible if simpler organisms simply fossilize a lot more easily.
And we don't really have jellyfish fossils, do we? But we presume they've been around a long time due to their simple nature.
As to rocks, I would think the origin of rocks is pretty critical to geology. Don't they class them by origin into igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic?
Given the human tendency to misuse knowledge, I have grave misgivings about the study of abiogenesis.
I'm sure Darwinists would come up with an explanation for rabbits in the Cambrian if it came up. After all, they've been finding new "human" fossils for years and adjusting the dates for the start of humanity, who says they can't do it with rabbits? It would barely be noteworthy.
There are already theories about possible rapid evolution, so I'm not sure your dogs giving birth to cats is something that would immediately cause an immediate rejection. If it did, though, other theories such as intelligent design would need to be rejected as well, so I'm not sure you're really putting it forth seriously.
Similarly with God's literal signature in English words on DNA. We know it's not likely at all, so making up something that's basically impossible and putting it forth as something that would defeat your theory is a bit of gamesmanship, no?
Not so fast, Miranda. The prize is mine!
Bwah hah hah! The perfect number for me, a Dawinianist, Evilutionist, Atheist-on-a-Daily-Basis.
Tonight I will dine on roast baby and, after I have supped, retire to the study for a round of post-prandial puppy beating!
OFT@659:
Now you are just being obnoxious. In as much as the theory of evolution is an assertive claim, the evidence supporting it is overwhelming, and there is no contradictory evidence. The burden of proof has been met.
You seem to be asserting that people on a blog are obliged to answer your unfounded claims, or else somehow evolution will be somehow magically found to be unsupported. That is ridiculous. You have an obligation to educate yourself. If you are truly interested in knowing more about evolution, you will find people on this blog more than willing to help. But you don't. I assert that you are just a troll. I have the evidence in your post. You have the obligation to refute it.
Damn it, Lowell! I tried my darndest. Ah, well. At least invite me over for roast baby? :)
OFT, make a claim and back it up, or shut up. Welcome to real science. Taking pot shots at evolution will get you nowhere. By the way, cambrian bunnies would make a real dent in evolution. Why don't you go and search for some.
Oh, sure Miranda. Come on over.
My place is 'twixt Earth and flesh, a place where the grinding of souls tells a tale of how the dead do dance.
Shorter OFT@671:
"Science is a bunch of stories that scientists make up as they go along."
Here, let me google that for you, IDIOT
this time I mean it about the fucking killfile.
hahaha, this will be fun.
OFT:
What part of empirical evidence do you not understand?
What, and ID/creationism has 'evidence' that isn't 'circumstantial'? Please, give us an example.
*cough* Lenski experiment
No it would. It goes against everything that that the theory evolution says. You even making that claim is pretty telling to your ignorance on the subject.
Okay, it's clear where this is going, and I will waste no more of your time or mine.
For the record, Wowbagger and Nerd, I did not push ID/Creationism. Taking pot shots at evolution, even in the absence of another theory, is not illegitimate, just as taking pot shots at a religion wasn't illegitimate before evolution was discovered.
Sven, thanks for the google. I'll review it. Don't worry about killfiling me, you won't see me again.
I will shut up now.
Oh good grief.
By that standard everything is circular. You might as well have said that scientific peer review and theological "peer review" are similar because the people involved breath air.
OFT #671 wrote:
No; if the fossil rabbit in the Cambrian was genuine, and not a hoax, evolutionary biologists would not be able to "come up with an explanation." Your analogy is not at all similar. Scientists cannot invoke magic without granting the supernatural.
The only possible way I can see to reconcile that with evolution would be to posit a time machine. And that would be more than barely noteworthy. It would be noted, and dismissed as too unlikely.
Ok. Now it's your turn. What would falsify Creationism? Something specific, a bit of evidence that Creationism can't be reconciled with, not matter how much creationists want.
That was just too damned easy.
Rev BDC#683:
And I love his sentence that follows:
as if creationism is actually a theory. This troll is a complete moron; sadly, he is getting the attention he so desperately craves. Of course, his entertainment value will quickly wear off.
OFT, if you aren't a creationist, you sure sounded like the hundred other creationists with the same ignorant questions. In spite of your claims to the contrary, I'll put good e-ducats on the wager that your are one.
Ultimately religion rests on faith. Typical of putrid Pete. He came in with nothing and leaves with nothing.
You'd better have a bourbon and calm your cooties Rev., I can hear them chirping clear out here. ;)
Explain what you mean by circumstantial.
Evidence to support the assertion that it's "quite" possible?
"Quite" adds a lot of confidence to your statement. I'm sure you've got the data to support that additional confidence. How many sedimentary sequences have you looked at? What paleoenvironments? Are you integrating this assertion across all preservational regimes or are you restricting it to specific paleoenvironments? If so, which ones? If we're going to have any sort of real discussion, then I need to know what you're actually asserting. Science is about details.
What does "break down" mean? Do you mean anatomically? Do you mean chemically? Which? Are you talking about syndepositional taphonomy or are you referring to alterations of the fossils after sedimentation in the burial regime has ceased? It matters...
What's a simple organism?
What's a complex organism?
I have definitions for these things. What are your definitions? If you're going to posit the possibility that you do above, then you must have started at the beginning, right? You know, making sure that you actually have operational definitions for the words you're going to use? You wouldn't be actually asserting something without having done your homework, would you?
Yes, we do.
Next.
No. This isn't analogous to the question which was asked. The analogy is more of whether there is a requirement to understand how the Earth formed in order to do geology. You know, how did the solar nebular produce the initial materials that existed prior to the start of the tectonic engine. This is more analogous to abiogensis being necessary to study evolution. And, as a practicing, publishing earth scientist, I can tell you that the answer to that question is a resounding no.
Seriously, do you guys ever do any homework before you spout your bullshit? Are your standards for theological research this fucking pathetic?
You guys always piss and moan that we don't respect you in discussions. Well, if you'd actually give us the common fucking courtesy of having read at least a little about the thing you claim doesn't exist, then you might get a better reception.
This is Pharyngula.
Respect is earned.
In a word, bullshit. These hypotheses are tested every time a paleontologist goes out into the field.
We understand how organisms fossilize, so these alternatives amount to nothing more than special pleading. You are no longer arguing against evolution, but against science's understanding of the way bodies decompose and fossilize. In other words, you are questioning a much broader aspect of science. This is no longer questioning whether evolution is scientific, but whether science as a whole provides a correct view of reality.
Yes we do, as literally 5 seconds with Google would have confirmed.
By "origin", I meant "where did rocks in general come from?", not how the specific "species" of rocks arose. "Why is their rock rather than non-rock?", in other words. You don't have to know about planetary formation to do geology, and you don't have to have an account of abiogenesis to study evolution.
Is that a scientific claim? It sure doesn't look like one, so I presume you have no actual response to my assertion that research into abiogenesis and artificial life is making progress.
The "rabbit fossil in the (pre-)Cambrian" was actually a remark made by the renowned biologist J B S Haldane when he was specifically asked what would constitute evidence against evolution. So yes, such a find would be profoundly problematic, the equivalent of finding a Buick buried in an undisturbed Mayan pyramid. In any case, your disbelief that this would be seen as a problem isn't relevant -- I gave you a specific impossibility for evolution, as you asked. You not accepting it in good faith is your problem, not mine.
Again you are not arguing in good faith by suggesting I am not serious. I am completely serious that a dog giving birth to a cat would be devastating if not fatal for the theory of evolution. No current theory, however "rapid", accepts such possibility -- indeed, evolutionary theory historically explicitly rejected the notion of "hopeful monsters" and other such instantaneous speciation. Which gives lie to your other point, which is that such an event would be a problem for all theories of species origin -- this kind of event was instead explicitly predicted by Goldschmidt.
As to whether Intelligent Design could account for such an event, you'd have to ask its proponents -- we were talking about evolutionary theory, not intelligent design (which historically was not the only alternative to Darwin's account).
Why is it impossible? Again you are arguing in bad faith. I have given you a clear criterion. The only reason you think it is "impossible" is if you implicitly accept a primarily naturalist view of the universe, of which evolution is a part. If you really believe in God, you would presumably believe that nothing is impossible for Him, and that he certainly performs violations of natural law, i.e. "miracles", that are far more difficult that writing his name in our very DNA. If you think such a thing is "impossible", you really don't have much faith.
I am trying to engage you honestly, but your responses suggest you aren't really interested in honest debate. Are you?
Classic -- just like all other creationists, when it comes down to actually arguing the science, they scamper like the intellectual cowards they are.
OFT is CrypticLife over from the blog Religious Clause, posting on behalf, (and playing devils advocate to the morons cause), of some twit calling themselves Our Founding Truth. Only the first post is a verbatim copy of the same BS that was posted on Religious Clause. Its pure Poe, as a means of proving a point to someone spouting creationist BS, who opted to post such a lame argument against evolution, in a thread that barely mentions it. It kind of falls flat though, since I doubt the real OFT is probably one of those people that couldn't comprehend the evidence against their "view" anyway.
Technically "we" are under no obligation whatsoever. "We" often do so for fun, or to provide a counter to tiresome, stupid creationists. Of course not all creationists are stupid but a)creationism, in the 21st century is one of the most stupid ideas around; b) the ones who post on this blog are - universally and c)that, by its universal nature, includes you.
So why, given that not all creationists, who share this stupid idea, are personally stupid, does that make you so?
Because anyone who wants to find out what is known (and not known) about the origin of life and its subsequent evolution would scarcely start here. You won't believe anything people here say, however experienced and knowledgeable they are. Even if you had chosen to start here, the obvious thing would be to read the posts here, see the counters to the creationist claims, always the same, always stupid, then go off and read about it. If you weren't stupid, you would do this.
But, of course, you aren't just deeply, deeply stupid, you are also religiously deluded, and a liar.
The religious delusion is obvious - you wouldn't be asking these questions unless the global comprehension centres of your brain were not already fried by too much brainwashing and the constant repetition of magic spells in your head. Your ability to process new information is already severely compromised. I suspect that it is, essentially, now impossible for you to understand science and real human knowledge because, for you, dreams, faith, bible verses, misattributed fears and hopes and any amount of mumbo-jumbo has fucked your brain up so much that reason is a distant, pre-faith memory. To this, of course, you are blind. It will seem to you that you are clear-headed and rational - but nothing is further from the truth.
Also, of course, your motives in coming here are evident to everyone here, conceal them though you will - you are proselyting. You are trying to make Jesus beans for the magic beanstalk that will take you to heaven, and in order to get these you believe, in your mania, that coming here and talking to the atheists about science - which, for religious reasons, you reject, essentially in its entirety.
But hey, we all know this, don't we. It's a little game, isn't it - why, you've probably been here before, under a different name, and you're back for more.
Well, perhaps I could politely suggest that you take your gay jesus - nothing wrong with that of course (but really - I mean no wife, 33, domineering mother, absent father - don't say you didn't suspect), well please take your cum-gobbling saviour, his psychotic baby-raping father, his "virgin" mother, and the entire bible, every single last page, and place them carefully but conscientiously, up your arse - though in reality of course, it will only be the bible which will actually physically penetrate the sphincter.
Fuck you, fuck what passes for "ideas" in your head, fuck you religion of hate and oppression, fuck your symbols, fuck your prayers, fuck everything you believe in. Please go off, and instead of posting here have a good long wank, or pray (the two being of identical utility).
In other words, kindly remove yourself from the realm of rationality we call "here" and take your silly imaginary friends with you. We utterly loathe your sort - you represent all that's bitter and stupid and false and twisted about humanity.
I hope that answers your questions.
Now, fuck off, there's a good boy.
Ack.. Ok... Lets try that last sentence again:
It kind of falls flat though, since I don't doubt the real OFT is probably one of those people that couldn't comprehend the evidence against their "view" anyway.
I have to learn to use "preview" on these things... :p
Yeah, I know, sorry. It's just that I do like saying "fuck god". I know it's childidh but...
Actually, damnit no! I won't hear of critcism! People were put to death, and still are for blaphemy - it's my fucking duty!
Perhaps, though, it's just as well PZ banned the "c" word.
Exactly.
WOW! I have been reading this thread and it is apparent no one knows anything especially dawkins. What a joke, all of the so called thinkers. Please, nobody truly knows or understands origins and people that say they do are arrogant idiots. Thinking we can even understand the complexity of it all is like a dog writing a thesis about a flea bite. IDIOTS!
So is gruesomeness.
And it's getting damned tough to keep up with vulgarity and obscenity. You uppity youngsters got stamina.
Fuck off Jason.
Jason, care to posit a scientific theory, and then cite the peer reviewed primary scientific literature to back up your claim? Until you do so, you have nothing. Put up the right information or shut up.
I suspect you're right that it falls flat, Kagehi, given past posts of Our Founding Truth. I didn't really want to keep it up for long because I don't really want to waste people's time here (you know -- and I got flattened). Incidentally, though, I really enjoyed the guppy page and a lot of the other information.
I deeply apologize if it bothers those here -- I pursued it only to get answers that Our Founding Truth couldn't easily brush off. I won't do it again. And yes, the real OFT has links to ID sites on his blog.
WOW! I have been reading this thread and it is apparent no one knows anything especially dawkins. What a joke, all of the so called thinkers. Please, nobody truly knows or understands origins and people that say they do are arrogant idiots. Thinking we can even understand the complexity of it all is like a dog writing a thesis about a flea bite. IDIOTS!
Thank you Jason for showing us just exactly how far the human species can sink into the depths of stupidity.
You're a shinning example.
Are you proud of how idiotic you come off?
KatjaE @ 267:
I'm not sure I buy this as a general principle. Consider publicly funding a church that runs a religious charity. One might argue that the public funds only go toward the charitable activities and not toward the church, but it still frees up funds for the church to use and is effectively subsidizing it.
Of course, I think it's reasonable for science and its communication to the public (e.g. via talks) to get public support, and it looks like the legislator's only reason for not wanting Dawkins to talk is that Dawkins is a critic of religion.
CrypticLife, say five Hail Ramens, and all is forgiven (at least by me).
Yeah, all those millions of scientists who have looked into the matter over the last 150 years, they are but dogs writing about flea bites. And I'm sure you've qualified to say just how wrong they are, after all you obviously have spent the time looking at the evidence to conclude that scientists and especially Dawkins are wrong.
Jason is a teen-ager, but I will give him credit for being able to write in sentences (sort of) with capital letters and punctuation and stuff. Doesn't make up for the fact that he is still a 'tard.
Jason the Twit,
There is a respected regular poster at this blog known as Jason. He has seniority to the name. Chose a different name. Or better yet, fuck off.
Just for the record:
1) I am a lifelong Oklahoman (in suave, sophisticated Tulsa) and
2) I emailed my Oklahoma State Representative today, asking him to PLEASE POKE REP. THOMSEN IN THE EYE REALLY HARD BECAUSE HE WAS DOODY-HEAD AND I WAS TIRED OF HIM BREATHING MY AIR.
Don't we Okies have enough trouble without the snake-handlers getting all the press? Sheesh!
As a teenager he has an excuse for being ignorant, but not for showing it. I do kind of wonder why more teens in the states don't rebel against the religious authority oppressing them. I suppose that the answer is that they do - by having sex and taking drugs and so on - but I could wish that their bullshit detectors, now fully functioning, could be a little more um...perceptive.
It would indeed be a remarkable event. Though, as a skeptic, it would take a lot of evidence to convince me that dogdidit.
I used to be an atheist, due to my scientific background in biology, ecology, chemistry, and physics. But the more I learned about science, history, and religion, the more it became apparent to me that Atheism is really a religion itself, just a branch of Christianity -- the mirror image of it, but with all the same problematic underlying philosophical underpinnings.
Can someone answer this, since I searched through all the Atheist literature during my last days as a devotee and could not find a shred of evidence to support it: how, on a biomolecular level, can genes and chromosomes reorganize themselves "randomly" to produce such things as complex as new proteins? The math doesn't add up.
I'm not interested in a macro-ecological explanation for Dawkins' theories, I've been through all that and accept it.
Null Hypothesis, evolution != atheism.
Yawn, an alleged ex atheist. Boring.
academic jealousy, much?
"Null Hypothesis, evolution != atheism"
I agree. But I'm looking for an answer to my question about the elephant in the closet.
"...No, you're still under an obligation to defend evolution. Evolution is an assertive claim, and the burden is on the claimant to prove the claim..."
You have a poor understanding of how scientific work is done. Darwin didn't wake from his slumber one day and randomly formulate evolution, proclaim it to be true, and then set out to match everything to his idea. That's what your idiot religious leaders probably told you, or what you at the very least appear to have chosen to believe. Darwin's idea is no faith, it is fact. Darwin can prove his case. You can't. You are the the one owing the debt to society, not Darwin. What has your religion done? You can't find cures with it; you can't heal injuries with it; you can't develop new drugs with it; you can't lay your hands and expect Jesus' powers to come through. You have nothing. Science has done more for humanity than any religion ever has, and those scientists who were religious did work that succeeded in spite of their religiosity, not because of it. It is religion that has always and ever fought progress.
"...I don't have to defend or assert creationism to question evolution. Evolution can be simply one more revealed faith, simply one revealed to a naturalist rather than a theologian. I don't have to prove the theologian's points to dispute the naturalist's..."
The problem for you is you live in the natural world, not the non-existent world of the theologians. Which basically means that yes, you DO have to prove yourself. Nothing is more haughty and arrogant than a religious apologist yelling from the mountain tops that he knows exactly what happened, and that his faith (which was most likely handed to him as a ransom) is the true way. We'd all love for you to explain how your specific religion is the true way. I doubt you will however. No religious posters here ever get around to doing so. Go ahead: educate us hedonistic hypocrites.
You say evolution "can simply be one more revealed faith", but do not explain how it is a faith. So inform us as to what gods we worship, what commandments we operate by, what saints we model ourselves after, what symbols, what great halls, what statues. My guess is you'll generate the same anti-intellectual spew as every other fundagelical that comes in here.
Real life isn't as you have been indoctrinated to perceive it. How does it feel to have been hoodwinked? With each post you guys throw up, I'm more and more convinced dropping the religion of my youth was a very sound, intelligent, logical, and life-affirming move.
Obviously you didnt learn much at all.
And with all the sciencey stuff you learned you are still confused about whats atheism,and whats evolution.Atheist literature on genes and proteins?
I sense a liar for jeebus.
Null Hypothesis @ 713:
The claim that atheism is the mirror image of Christianity is a bit retarded. You've evidently never met atheists from countries like Iran or Pakistan (oh wait, I'm sure they're just a mirror image of Islam, right?).
And why were you looking through atheist literature to find the answer to a scientific question? Why not look through the scientific literature?
Why do you think that genes and chromosomes reorganize randomly to create new proteins? There are random mutations, to be sure, but no wholesale random reorganization that I'm aware of (the closest thing I can think of that sounds anything like that is chromosomal crossing over, which is really just a recombination).
Could you show us your exact argument (including math) so we know exactly what the problem you're talking about is?
The problem is you were looking in the wrong place, you should have been scouring microbiology literature rather than books on atheism. It's like looking for polar bears by searching through the forests of Thailand.
Since the jason troll didn't post scientific theory thats an alternative to evolution I'll play devils advocate.
"There was a magic space pixie called god and he did something lovely".
And the answer was you were looking in the wrong place.
I love statements like this. Seriously, how fucking stupid do they really think we are?
Why is it that every third proselytizing goddist makes this claim? While I don't doubt that a tiny minority of atheists find Jebus, I really have to wonder about the hordes of ex-atheists sweeping the internet like vast herds of wildebeests migrating on the Serengeti.
"I used to be an atheist" folks like Null Hypothesis are looking for people to believe them. Then they'll start offering great deals on ocean-front property in Wyoming.
Atheist literature? I'm not aware we anything other than personal opinion. Certainly no equivalent to the bible. After all, all atheism is covered with this phrase: "there are no gods". No need for anything other than a bumper sticker.
"The claim that atheism is the mirror image of Christianity is a bit retarded. You've evidently never met atheists from countries like Iran or Pakistan (oh wait, I'm sure they're just a mirror image of Islam, right?)."
In my opinion Christianity and Islam are pretty much the same, with a slighty different central theme.
"And why were you looking through atheist literature to find the answer to a scientific question?"
Because I thought that would be the first place where that evidence would be presented for all to see.
"Why do you think that genes and chromosomes reorganize randomly to create new proteins? "
Isn't that the central idea of Dawkins, that we are machines programmed by our selfish genes, who make proteins to express their genotype in the phenotype. With random mutations you get different genes and phenotypes on which evolutionary forces can act, right? What other mechanism does Dawkins suggest for the emergence of new genes and proteins?
"Could you show us your exact argument (including math) so we know exactly what the problem you're talking about is?"
I did the math a few years ago so it's a little rusty, but look at the complexity of genes and the proteins they encode. Then invoke this "irreducible complexity" stuff of the ID'ers (one of which I am not), and use the typical mutations that you learn about it biochem and microbiology, and see what the necessary rate of mutation would do to your chromosomes.....
I don't have the answer, I'm searching for it.
I personally can't answer that question, perhaps someone in the field can.
I can however ask you if we do not have an answer to that, what exactly does that have to do with atheism or for that matter the Theory of Evolution?
Or are you suggesting that if we do not have the answer yet that it nullifies all the other mountains of evidence collected over the past 150 years that supports the ToE?
Or wait, are you thickheaded enough to think that if we don't have the answer yet (and I'm not saying we don't) that it automatically means that it is evidence for ID creationism?
"And the answer was you were looking in the wrong place."
Tell me where to look. I finished my degree in ecology then thought about med school so took up to 3rd year biochem, microbiology and organic chemistry, but then decided to switch to mechanical engineering. I found nothing in my formal education hinting at an answer.
"Why is it that every third proselytizing goddist makes this claim? While I don't doubt that a tiny minority of atheists find Jebus"
I never though that statement would ever be sent my way!
I smell a godbot asking a stupid question he things will bring down the ToE. Yawn. As a 30+ year scientist I find you a boring idiot. This question is for the biologists to answer, but science already has the answer. With hundreds of thousands to millions of peer reviewed scientific papers backing ToE, you have nothing new to say. We are not as stupid as you think we are.
"I used to be an atheist, due to my scientific background in biology, ecology, chemistry, and physics..."
Oh? And what is/was your professional position exactly? Do you think listing several different scientific disciplines will impress us into think you were actually such a person? I await with giddiness for this answer...
"...But the more I learned about science, history, and religion, the more it became apparent to me that Atheism is really a religion itself, just a branch of Christianity -- the mirror image of it, but with all the same problematic underlying philosophical underpinnings..."
And what would those underpinnings be exactly? A branch of Christianity? That's a new one on me. I had no idea we were closet Xians. The Catholic and Protestant denominations would be interested in hearing about your rationale on this. As are we, actually...I think. How is the lack of ANY religion, a branch of Christianity? And what religion have you assumed yourself into?
"...Can someone answer this, since I searched through all the Atheist literature during my last days as a devotee and could not find a shred of evidence to support it: how, on a biomolecular level, can genes and chromosomes reorganize themselves "randomly" to produce such things as complex as new proteins? The math doesn't add up."
Well, to answer your question, maybe you should retake all those courses in biology, ecology, chemistry, and physics, and locate the answer yourself. One would think you'd know if you had actually taken those classes (let alone practiced your learnings in any sort of professional capacity), which you do not appear to have done so. Do you think that by simply saying you have a "background", we'll take that on face value? Even if you had all that education and still didn't find evolution compelling, you'd at least be able to tell us the answer that the "evil liberal academic establishment" uses to justify evolution in biological terms. So can you answer your own question first? My guess is you can't. If you can, you have ours
LOL "last days as a devotee"? I will give you this: you sound pretty funny. Please elaborate on what you practiced as a, quote, "devotee". Will you poseurs ever understand that trying to "trick" us into your frame isn't going to work? Do you think we're so stupid as to not see right through your religion-based perspective and how it permeates everything you say? "Searched through all the Atheist literature"? What literature would that be? And you read "all" of it? Be honest: you think we're a bunch of hayseeds. Atheism as a concept was formulated ages before evolutionary theory came along, and that's besides the fact that atheism is entirely separate from the sciences strictly speaking. How did atheism produce or formulate evolutionary theory?
Three words for you: You're an idiot.
I know the answer to that one. He's fine, he's very happy, and he's just finished designing the giraffe enclosure at the San Diego zoo.
New Yorker cartoon - Elephant on a psychiatrist's coach, saying: "Well,the problem is that everyone keeps ignoring me. It's like I'm not even in the room".
@ 729,
Well,thank gawd that the ToE doesnt really care if some religionist can google gene recombination or not.
And let me guess what your alternative theory is...
*POOF*
Right?
Wow, what a load of bovine feces. Whenever I want the answer to a scientific question I always look in books on a different topic.
Null Hypothesis, that is one of the most stupid things I read in a long time, and I've read Ben Stein's economics columns.
Null hypothesis states new proteins cannot be created by biochemical changes due to mathematics. I'm pretty sure BCR/ABL kinase is a new protein created by a translocation (theres you biomolecular process). As it's only found in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia i'd say it proves new proteins can just arise randomly.
"Or are you suggesting that if we do not have the answer yet that it nullifies all the other mountains of evidence collected over the past 150 years that supports the ToE?
Or wait, are you thickheaded enough to think that if we don't have the answer yet (and I'm not saying we don't) that it automatically means that it is evidence for ID creationism?"
No, not at all. ID creationism explains nothing. I'm as strong a supporter of ToE as anyone, but it seems to have its limitations in explaining biology. Atheists would consider this a threat, I consider it an opportunity for new discovery.
If I may put forth my take on it, I see the ToE as kind of synonymous with classical Newtonian physics. A the time Newtonian physics seemed so obvious to anyone with their eyes open and presented with the evidence. Some people even went so far as to proclaim that sciecne was on the verge of explanign everything based on it (sound familiar, Atheists?). But then as we probed smaller and bigger into physics we realized there is actually a hell of a lot more going on that Newtonian physics, and that it is only just a subset of quantum physics and relativity.
I think the same can be said for ToE. It makes perfect sense, it's blatantly obvious, it isn't wrong, but there is much more going on that it just can't explain, just like with Newtonian physics.
Did you come across homeobox sequences and Hox genes at all? One thing I'm curious is why without knowing how organisms self-organise is that it means there must be a God. There was no point in even mentioning atheism, and talking about atheist literature being inadequate was irrelevant. If you weren't setting up the inadequacies of evolution as a means of comparing atheism to Christianity, then what were you doing?For that matter, what answer does putting God in there do to further our knowledge? Evolutionary theory for the last 150 years has been passing rigorous testing, prediction after prediction of what we would find have been validated. Evolutionary theory adds explanatory power. What can God do to further our knowledge on biology? It's a non-answer masquerading as an answer. it tells us nothing and prevents us from looking further. If there is a gap in our knowledge of evolution, why would we stop looking for the answer? Why should the absence of knowledge of homeobox DNA sequences lead us to conclude that Goddidit? Should we have done the same 100 years ago when there was no knowledge on how traits could be transmitted for inheritance? Should we have done the same 150 years ago when there was no knowledge on how species came about? To play this off as a lack of atheist explanation is arguing that difficult questions should be solved by saying Goddidit and leaving it at that. God answers nothing, yet in the last 150 years thanks to continual study we have a damn good idea of how life diversified and how we as humans came about. No God was necessary, but by the logic you presented it would seem that the entire endeavour should not have been started in the first place...God - keeping people ignorant and oblivious for 2500 years.
Behold:
The obvious has finally been stated explicitly.
Null hypothesis, if you think you have something new, what you need to do is to write a paper and submit to a proper scientific peer reviewed journal. I recommend Science or Nature, as high profile journals who attempt to publish ground breaking discoveries. So, write the paper and send it to be published. Don't waste your idea on us, who may take your idea, write and submit the paper first, and get all the credit. Failure to write the paper mean you are just a troll. Welcome to science.
only in America...
"And let me guess what your alternative theory is...
*POOF*
Right?"
I guess you didn't read my earlier post. I said I didn't have an answer, I'm looking for one.
Why do I expect a God of the Gaps to emerge out of "Newtonian evolution"? Am I just naturally suspicious? Or do Null Hypothesis' writings have a barnyard smell?
oh for fuck's sake.
Seriously Null Hypothesis that's fucking stupid. No two ways to explain that.
I did the math a few years ago so it's a little rusty, but look at the complexity of genes and the proteins they encode. Then invoke this "irreducible complexity" stuff of the ID'ers (one of which I am not), and use the typical mutations that you learn about it biochem and microbiology, and see what the necessary rate of mutation would do to your chromosomes.....
Publish it and you'd get the Nobel Prize. Unless you did it wrong, which is far more likely.
Was probability included in your studies? Because if you had you might have learned that a low probability ≠ no probability.
"I'm pretty sure BCR/ABL kinase is a new protein created by a translocation (theres you biomolecular process). As it's only found in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia i'd say it proves new proteins can just arise randomly."
"Did you come across homeobox sequences and Hox genes at all?
"
Thanks, I'll check on that.
Null Hypothesis:
This is about as true as saying that Italian and Portuguese are the same language, and that cattle and wildebeests are the same animal. You're nothing if not a lumper.
But more to the point, there are atheists from diverse backgrounds (I have met a few from Hindu families as well). Perhaps you consider them all converts to this branch of Christianity, but you've yet to explain what it is that makes them essentially the same.
That's silly. You should check scientific journals (or at the very least, textbooks) for those kinds of questions. This is only very tangentially related to atheism in that creotards think that tearing down the ToE would somehow make atheism impossible.
That's a bit different from what you said initially. Random reorganization is not the same as mutation and natural selection.
Could you please spell it out? I'm not math-phobic, but this is still more than a little vague. I'm sure you know how much room there is for pitfalls in naive calculations of this sort of thing, but it's hard to address without knowing quite what you're talking about.
And it's still not clear what any of this has to do with atheism.
Still think we have a godbot who ain't as smart as he thought he was. Let the damage control begin.
Here is the math:
Say you have a population of 2000 individuals undergoing evolution. What is the typical number of genes an organism has? 20,000?
For each gene, what is the probability that a mutation acting on its fundamental pieces would bring about a new so-called "irreducibly complex" functioning gene that could produce a new trait leading to a phenotype?
Natural selection selects for traits basically one at a time, in essence, one gene at a time, well maybe a few acting together at a time.
I'm not going to punch in all those numbers right now, but come on. It's absurd. You'd need a population of hundreds of millions, with 99.9% of the offspring turning out as gimps.
For fuck's sake, you liar. We really are not as stupid as you think, we've seen all this nonsense before. If you try to compare the situation with Newtonian physics and Einstein's paradigm shift then you have entirely the wrong conceptual framework. There was nothing "wrong" with Newton's theory that was looking for an explanation, no legions of scientists wondering why gravitation wasn't working quite right - Einstein's theory, while bringing about a major conceptual shift made virtually no difference to the forces concerned. Just as, today, no one is looking for "another" theory of evolution - this one works just fine. The details, endlessly fascinating, are forever being refined, but any new theory would wholly encompass Darwin's ideas, and many others.
The creationist question you are asking is "how can a random process produce life from non-life" and we all know the answer to that one (Hint: your problem is in the stupid question)
Fuck off and read your bible and don't pretend to be asking questions while you're really just doing yet more tiresome apologetics. Tosser.
I have to agree with this. I've had to put two more pumps on line for my bullshit detector's cooling water.
Oh god, he's onto "maths" now!
Probability you, and every cell in your body, evolved via natural processes: 100%.
Probability you will steadily work through every creationist canard: 100%
Why don't you just cut to the chase - one post about how you're merely looking for truth, one about how hurt your feelings are, and then about 100 saying you're just going.
Shit.
So what's next? Ban his books from the libraries, burn them, and burn Dawkins as a witch? Its even more laughable as its known for the surrey with the fringe on top. Okies, indeed.
"And it's still not clear what any of this has to do with atheism."
I'm a little surprised myself by all the resistance to me bringing up Atheism in a blog about Dawkins, the definition of Atheism, who trumpets the ToE as the explanation of all things biological. I don't know, it just seemed to fit the setting....
The literature I went through was all my undergrad 3rd and 4th year texts in biochem, microbio, and cell biology, searching for someone to show me the math. I found nothing vaguely hinting at it. Then I thought I should go check out the Skeptical Enquirer, who seems to devote a good chunk of their space showing evidence for evolution (which I don't dispute). I went through about 5 years of those issues and found nothing. Sorry, I haven't taken an official course in evolution.
That is indeed a foolish resolution for Oklahoma to be considering, but I could not find where it banned Richard Dawkins from the state. It seems that its entire effect would be to send letters expressing their strong disapproval to some university officials.
Maybe it would be better to condemn the resolution for what it actually is, than to make up stuff about it?
Maths oh no, run... Oh, that's right. I have a math minor, almost a major. Bring on the equations.
'Tis Himself, Even with my heavy duty fuses, my bullshit meter and irony meters require fuses by the gross. A normal Friday. Welcome to Pharyngula. You too AnthonyK. Good troll stomp.
Because, you vacuous twit, atheism has NOTHING to do with genes and chromosomes reorganizing randomly to create new proteins. Your ex-atheism (which I am doubting more and more as you prattle on) has as much to do with micro-biology as whether or not you're right handed or what your sexual orientation is.
"we've seen all this nonsense before."
I'm sure you have. Yet you haven't addressed my question. No one ever has. And it's a very basic question, the most basic of mathematical implications of the ToE in conjuction with biochemistry.
I wonder why everyone is so abusive and defensive? Because it means they might have to open up to admitting that their view of the world and science might be lacking in some respects? (And no, I'm not talking about God since I ma not religious).
I have sent this e-mail to the members of the Oklahoma legislature:
=======================================
Representative:
Please do your utmost to make sure that your colleague Todd Thomsen amends Resolution 1014 to include these provisions:
--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Geology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that the world is round but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Physics at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that an invisible force called gravity causes objects to be attracted to each other but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Astronomy at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that the earth revolves around the sun but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
--------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory that the human mind is solely a product of the human brain but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
=======================================
Null, write the paper. It's your idea. Take credit/blame for it. That is the honorable position. Or shut the fuck up because you don't have evidence and you know it. That is an honorable position. Keep harping on it mean you are troll with no honor. Welcome to science.
Creationist bingo! Cards at the ready....
Aww, what are you all complaining about? My bullshit meter is so old it's got a kick start.
Null, we've had several trolls banned due to asking the same inane question over and over, until PZ gets bored with them. If you wish to avoid being banned, try to google the answer to your question on your own. You have asked it enough.
Ok Null Hypothesis I'll bite. BCR/ABL kinase will form in 1 or 2 people per 100,000 each year. It's a low probability but it's only a single mutation in a practically limitless number of possible ones. I already told you the biochemical mechanism by which it arises.
Have to cut in another cooling water pump on the BS detector.
You wrote, way back in post #713: "I used to be an atheist"
So what are you now? A Hari Krishna? A Sikh? A Rastafarian? A Wisconsin Synod Lutheran? A Zoroastrian?
Your question is weirdly put since genes don't generally "reorganize themselves", but here are some processes that may result in new proteins: gene duplication and divergent selection, unequal crossing over, frameshift mutations, ...
A follower of the great god "Wank" is what he is.
nice Yanquetino
Fuck this noise. I'm going to play Civ IV until the wife decides to come to bed.
This isn't resistance to bringing up atheism. This is resistance to claiming that something problematic for evolution (not that you've made it clear what your problem is) is not necessarily problematic for atheism. Again, no resistance to bringing up atheism, but how is anything you've said relevant to atheism at all?
Far from being averse to talking about atheism, I noted that you're making some preposterous claims about it, and that ought to give you cause to back them up.
You know, I find that a bit ironic. But I'd expect that population genetics would be a good field to search if you have a genuine interest.
So far so good. Let's see if you take this anywhere.
Indeed, what is that probability? I was hoping this would be part of the work you'd show. This step definitely isn't trivially easy (especially since I don't know how you define "a new trait leading to a phenotype" as opposed to a variation on an existing trait).
And what was the point of mentioning the population and number of genes earlier? Were you going to do anything with that?
That's not right. A single population could have a bunch of genes simultaneously being selected for/against independently of one another.
So you're not going to show your work?
I know you don't have infinite time (neither do I), but if you're going to come to a thread like this and talk about how the math doesn't add up, you should be willing to show us the math. If you need some time (we all have lives outside Pharyngula) just let us know (then again, the thread might be full/closed by that time, but there will always be others, and there are many knowledgeable math-loving people here).
Better yet, if you really have a substantive point, try to publish it. It will help you in lots of ways. It will force you to formulate your idea clearly and concisely, and (if the reviewers are doing their job), it will force you to fix any problems with it.
Yeah, no organisms have populations that large...
And, to be less snarky, I don't see any mention of time in your "numbers". When you have millions of years, and thus a huge number of generations, the "math", even that as fuzzy as yours, no longer is an issue.
"Because, you vacuous twit, atheism has NOTHING to do with genes and chromosomes reorganizing randomly to create new proteins."
OK, seriously, I want to clarify this. What is atheism? As I understand it, it is the assertion that there is no God, and that all things observable can be explained by the laws of physics acting on "things" that exist in reality. It is up to us as objective observers, using the scientific method, to "discover" those laws. With the fundamental laws of physics as a basis (not fully discovered as of yet), this leads to the higher level "laws" of chemistry and biology. It is possible through material reductionism to explain all higher level phenomena by breaking them down into their more basic parts down the the basic laws of chemistry and physics. As Dawkins puts it, we are machines.
Atoms bounce around according to brownian motion, and molecules undergo transformations by chemical processes which can be explained by quantum physics and energy levels, blah blah blah, all the stuff you learn in organic chem. With time and large numbers, the chemistry becomes more complex and eventually you get something semi life like which then can be acted upon by natural selection. These molecules form more complex RNA, DNA, then genes and chromosomes, yadda yadda yadda, and new ones emerge via the typical mutations we learn about of the different base pairs and accidental recombinations. Yet it all can be explained by the fundamental chemistry underlying it.
This is what I understand Atheism to be, right?
How does this have "NOTHING to do with genes and chromosomes reorganizing randomly to create new proteins."
I want to know, really, explain to me the difference between Atheism versus genes and chromosomes randomly reorganizing.
FSTDT! Or, I'm sorry, would that be ExASTDT?
I'm an atheist. I assert that there is not a shred of scientific evidence that gives credence to the idea that there are/is/was/will be a god or gods.
I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I can't answer your question, but yes, I believe the scientific method is essential for answering your question, and I'm guessing that "goddidit" is not going to be the answer.
It's lack of belief in gods. That's it. If you don't believe any gods exist, you're an atheist.
And google your alleged scientific question. The question is probably answered somewhere on the interweb.
Nope, many atheists do not make such an assertion. The minimal criterion for atheism is that the atheist doesn't believe there is a god. The atheist doesn't have to commit to the contrary belief.
Nothing to do with atheism. Atheists need not be philosophical materialists; it's entirely possible to believe in souls and ghosts and whatnot without believing a god is responsible for the whole business.
Nothing to do with atheism or materialism, really. Materialism isn't tied to any particular theory of physics or chemistry.
My Dollar Store toothpaste just isn't up to getting the last foul taste of a dumb ass troll off my teeth. Time to break out the sangria and sand paper.
As I said, a godbot. Atheism is a bumper sticker "God does not exist". Totality of atheism. Period. End of story. Only a godbot thinks otherwise.
I'm starting to miss the SBG (Stupid Bloody Git)
Null Hypothesis,
Incidentally, the fact that you don't know what atheism means (really the etymology of it ought to make it fairly obvious) tells me that you haven't even read much atheist literature (or haven't comprehended much of what you've read). That, or you've somehow managed to avoid one of the most frequent, beaten-to-death topics that comes up.
That you really think that "atheist literature" (or does scientific literature fall under that category with this bizarre definition?) was the place to go for the details of evolutionary biology is just utterly silly. Atheism is no more wedded to evolution than it is to special relativity. Acceptance of evolution is correlated with atheism in some populations (because of the difference in education, and because many religions make a big deal out of evolution, prompting people who leave their religion to re-think it) than of any logical necessity relating the two.
Actually, that's a good argument against ID and IC. Let's say I am a super-duper Intelligent Designer. I have designed a really cool organism with hundreds of prize-winning Irreducible Complex features. I release a population of these organisms on Earth. Despite my best attempts at error-correcting mechanisms (also IC), 99.9% of the offspring turn out as "gimps" since each mutation is likely to destroy at least one of the Irreducibly Complex traits. D'OH!
Yay the troll came out from under the bridge and went all spittle-flecked and raty about atheism.
That means a spring will come, or is it groundhogs i'm thinking of?
Behe actually posted a paper on this. despite him rigging the numbers and making the process as unlikely as possible, the kinds of mutations he was saying where a sign of design could come about quite quickly.
"I know you don't have infinite time (neither do I), but if you're going to come to a thread like this and talk about how the math doesn't add up, you should be willing to show us the math."
That's good, thanks for understanding, as I don't have much time, this weekend is a busy one for me. I stumbled upon this thread totally unprepared.
"That's not right. A single population could have a bunch of genes simultaneously being selected for/against independently of one another."
On an individual level natural selection selects for traits one phenotype at a time.
"Indeed, what is that probability? I was hoping this would be part of the work you'd show. This step definitely isn't trivially easy (especially since I don't know how you define "a new trait leading to a phenotype" as opposed to a variation on an existing trait)."
I think this would be easier than expected. It's more a question of this: what is the probability of a typical mutation / recombination event leading to a successful new or improved genetic combination that will lead to a better phenotype, VERSUS the probability of the mutation / recombination events leading to a total f*uckup. You'd get a ratio. I have no idea what it is right now, but let's say the typical gene is 200 codons (is that realistic?), of which 190 have to be in the correct order to make anything useful, well that ratio is going to be pretty damn small.
How can a population of 10,000 individuals, each expressing traits of 20,000 genes, be selected upon for new traits on a population level when on an individual basis, each new trait is being selected singularly? And then factor in the above ratio of successful-to-f*ckup offspring you'd expect to get as a result of those new recombinations, and it seems like you'd have to have an astronomically high number of offspring.
So you were lying when you said you had read a lot of Atheist literature? Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. That's it, nothing more. It's not the absolute belief in non-God, it's that there's no reason to believe there is one. Note the distinction.And even if one doesn't believe that God was involved, it doesn't mean that we have all the answers. There is a hell of a lot we don't know, it's just that saying Goddidit is not an answer for anything.
Why aren't you writing the paper troll?
Null, I'll put it in different terms. You want to be a published author. Do your show your manuscript to a) your friends and relatives, or b) agents and editors. The answer, of course, is b. So write and submit your paper to the peer reviewed journals. Don't try to discuss it here, unless, of course, you are a troll who deserves to get stomped on. Which we are quite good at, as we have had lots of practice.
Well there are a few ways people chose to look at it. But really it boils down to not seeing any evidence for a supreme being(s) so seeing no reason to think there is one (many). It's in the same vein as not believing in pink unicorns. There is no evidence presented to lead me to believe that there are pink unicorns.
I am open to someone presenting me with some evidence that supports a supreme being(s) but no one has done so to any level that I find convincing. So I remain an atheist.
Frankly the way you phrased that is similar to the way many religious folks do and i question your statement that you were an atheist.
"Nope, many atheists do not make such an assertion. The minimal criterion for atheism is that the atheist doesn't believe there is a god. The atheist doesn't have to commit to the contrary belief."
That's more agnostic than atheistic, isn't it? Seems an almost trivial semantic.
Null Hypothesis wrote:
Not quite - it's the rejection of the assertion that there is a god, generally because there are no valid arguments or evidence to support that assertion.
Alternatively, it can be the absence of knowledge of the assertion that there is a god - because you can't not believe in something you've never heard of. You just lack a belief in it.
So, to put it as you have - the assertion there is no god - is not entirely correct.
Null Hypothesis, you must remember that evolution is adaptation and mutation. So these complex genes are adaptations that have built together. things don't start bad and get better, they start from modifying already successful structures. The only time you need to get those hundreds of proteins in order is if you are building complex structures from scratch. But in evolutionary time, more primitive structures would have served different purposes. Like with the bacterial flagellum, while if you remove one part the flagellum ceases to work, but the smaller structures that make up the flagellum performed different tasks in it's ancestral path. With the mousetrap, Ken Miller was able to show that if you take away one part it functions well as something completely different. Irreducibly complex structures were accounted for and predicted over 90 years ago. Look up Mullerian two-step interlocking complexity if you want to find out more.
"Don't try to discuss it here, unless, of course, you are a troll who deserves to get stomped on."
Don't discuss what? The mathematics underlying the genetic basis for the theory of evolution? I guess it's taboo, because you don't want to look at it.
[cue Sesame Street music]
"One of these things is not like the other..."
Null, no, it's not taboo, but you state it was groundbreaking science. We want to make sure your get full credit by writing and submitting your paper to the appropriate journals. Any time you put your ideas into public prior to submitting the paper for publication you can lose credit for the idea. Now, what is more important? Winning the Nobel prize, or asking a stupid question.
Null, your continuing to ask the question means it is not of groundbreaking importance. It also means you are a lying godbotting troll. Your choice. Chose wisely cricket.
Null Hypothesis:
Surely the ratio of adaptive to maladaptive mutations is small, but even at this basic level I'm seeing you glossing over some important problems. You imply that there's one "correct order". This is a strong assumption. How many different ways would the protein be improved or changed in an adaptive way? How many would be neutral or even mildly harmful, but would have the potential to be adaptive later?
I maintain that this isn't a trivial thing to calculate, and have seen more than my share of misused probability along the lines you're drawing (the lines are still vague, though, so it's not totally clear this is where you're going, though I have my suspicions) that assumes that there's only one "correct" way that some of these need to be ordered in order to improve.
Amd then, of course, evolution isn't about the wholesale creation of functional genes from non-functional sequences, but about the modification of existing variation, which brings the probability of something beneficial coming along and being preserved a lot farther from 0.
It's not taboo, it's just that the mathematical basis of evolution is sound.
I don't want to look at it.
...Then later
Why is that, then? You are ignorant but apparently curious about the subject. You could perhaps audit one at your local college or u. There are also many good books on it that would be available through your library, and web sites right at your fingertips. Taking a class might be best, if you're looking for a situation in which you can ask questions. There are also several people here who can educate you if you're honestly desiring of knowledge, but in that case you should simply ask questions rather than arrogantly arguing from ignorance. (People will likely respond regardless, but this makes the process easier and more pleasant for those doing the educating.)
Okay, here's your reading assignment for tonight: Mathematical Methods of Population Genetics,
{Atheists} ∩ {Agnostics} ≠ Ø
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.
The probability question really is a stupid one considering that evolution has been observed. We've seen it in action. Can actually pick out the mutated genes. It's so probable that it's been observed in the wild.
It's like asking about the probability of someone getting hit by lightning. Given the right environment it can be very likely.
"Null, your continuing to ask the question means it is not of groundbreaking importance. It also means you are a lying godbotting troll. Your choice. Chose wisely cricket."
No, it means you don't have an answer. And no, I'm definitely not a troll. I used to be one of you.... until I found God .... (just kidding).
Well I should get off to bed soon. I haven't heard much of note here, just a lot of abuse by religious types who won't admit their beliefs hit some serious brick walls when you critically look to "reality" for evidence.
A few of you brought up specific genes I should look at and I will, thanks. Beyond that, most of you have just confirmed what I already knew about atheists and why, 5 years ago, I was prompted to broaden my scientific and philosophical horizons and move on.
To all the abusers out there, "the empty can rattles the most". And this one's good too, I read it yesterday, since we're talking about chromosomal and genetic recombinations: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded". Sorry, I know that's not PC but it seemed so fitting, and considering the abuse I've put up with here quite deserved.
I'll probably be back.
So, Null is now acknowledging his question isn't groundbreaking science that will destroy evolution, and that he is a troll. You have a lot scientists here, and we know how science is carried out. Hence we wanted to make sure you would get credit if you had a valid idea. Still, google to find the answer on your own. If you refine your search terms properly, you should find the answer to your question.
I used to be an Catholic, because I was born into a family which believed in this particular mythology about the supernatural.
Can someone answer this, since I searched through all the Catholic literature during my last days as a devotee and could not find a shred of evidence to support it: how, on a biomolecular level, can genes and chromosomes reorganize themselves "randomly" to produce such things as complex as new proteins? The math doesn't add up.
"{Atheists} ∩ {Agnostics} ≠ Ø
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive."
OK
"The probability question really is a stupid one considering that evolution has been observed. We've seen it in action. Can actually pick out the mutated genes. It's so probable that it's been observed in the wild."
I don't disagree. But on a molecular level the math doesn't add up.
Good night.
Or watching a guy get stuck by lighting then standing over his prone smoking body on the 18th green and asking how probably it was he struck.
That's something you should probably be asking your priest.
At #763 Null Hypothesis wrote:
Why do you keep mentioning atheists and atheism in your comments if you are supposedly discussing science and not discussing belief in god or lack thereof?
What's your point about atheism you're trying, and failing, to make as it relates to the science you're questioning?
And if you're not trying to tie atheism to your arguments about science, why bring it up again and again?
Humm. The makers mark must be kicking in
that should have read
... and asking the probability of him being struck.
Yes it does. It's just you are doing the sum wrong.
Nice choice. I bought a bottle today so I should have some good times with it tonight.
Asshole.
Willfully-ignorant asshole.
And I gave him a good math-genetics link and everything.
Well, there's his problem, more ways than one.
I would actually bet there's a specific abuse of probability that I've seen many times (often, but not always from creationists) occurring in the math, but I'd like to see it spelled out before I go further.
Anyway, good night to you too. I'm off too for now.
Pointing out how fucking asshole-ish this comment is has nothing to do with being "PC", it has to do with common decency.
As a frequent volunteer at the Special Olympics, I can safely say that every participant was a better human being than anyone who could make that comment and think it was somehow humorous.
Grow the fuck up.
And here's another one for when (if) he makes it back: Annotations to Links for Probability and Statistics Applications in Genetics.
Doesn't add up? According to whom? of course it does. It happens doesn't it. You even accept that it does. Are you trying to purpose that some unknown force creates the appropriate mutation for an animals given environment?
It's just goofy. The guy is lying there and his spikes are still glowing and your looking up at the sky wondering what force directed the bolt down.
I think I'm all in too. A four troll day is pretty heavy. If any of you night owls sees Facillis give him a good swat for me for #165 over on the rape thread.
Good night all.
G'nite all... gonna burn "Meet John Doe" to DVD, then to bed.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
GOOD ! do not let that animal goes into your house, kick it before it puts its penis to your anus.
"OK, seriously, I want to clarify this. What is atheism? As I understand it, it is the assertion that there is no God, and that all things observable can be explained by the laws of physics acting on "things" that exist in reality..."
Man there is all kinds of wrong in that. Who the F told you atheism was based in a philosophy centered on physics? Atheism is only this: Based on current available evidence there is no indication of the existence of a god or gods, ergo there is no logical reason to believe in one or many of them. Period. That's the whole thing. No physics, no "naturalist belief system,", nothing. The stance is taken from an accumulation of scientific evidence; it is not a stance openly advocated by science or scientists.
No good scientist or atheist would base everything on physics, not because physics is wrong, but because like all manner of the sciences, things are likely to change and new insights likely to be gained. Basing atheism in physics would be ultimately self-defeating.
I continue to be amazed at how a concept so simple as atheism can be construed a million different ways. Back to the basics people. When all else fails, deconstruct the word and you have your answer.
Ok i admit it...
I laughed. I'm not sure if that's simon from before or not. But I laughed.
Simon of the one-track mind.
Yet another troll indulging in public fantasising about its not-so-hidden lusts.
Not particularly edifying, but not particularly surprising, either.
Still laughing.
I doubt simon thought that was funny. But it sure as hell was.
Null Hypothesis is just another dishonest troll. Honestly I'd buy the curious explanation if that were to be the case. Instead he's asserted it's mathematically impossible even after being shown through many different ways it's not so. If he was genuinely curious, he'd go read those links before again complaining about the mathematical impossibility... methinks he has read too much Dempski
"As a frequent volunteer at the Special Olympics, I can safely say that every participant was a better human being than anyone who could make that comment and think it was somehow humorous."
I'm back. OK, I apologize for this. It was disprespectful of me, but you can see how it seemed fitting given the context. Relax a bit, don't take everything so seriously.
"Why do you keep mentioning atheists and atheism in your comments if you are supposedly discussing science and not discussing belief in god or lack thereof?"
I guess because Atheists, as I would presume to be typified by Dawkins (is that valid?), repeatedly try to use science to demonstrate evidence of their belief in the "non-existence of God" (or however you'd like to rephrase it). To this end, Dawkins goes on and on demonstrating the theory of evolution on a macroscopic scale as evidence of naturalistic explanations for life, and I don't disagree with this theory. Dawkins also takes pleasure in taking jabs at religious beliefs.
This is all fine and dandy, until you look at the probabilities for the ToE at the microscopic genetic level, and it just becomes ridiculously absurd. But it doesn't necessarily mean that ToE on the population scale is incorrect because it isn't; it has undeniable evidence.
But Dawkins' smugness has created a wedge for the ID creationists to come in and fit God into the picture. Dawkins' smugness has come around to smack him in the face, and this along with his denial of basic mathematics certainly doesn't do much to bolster the public's image of science. What he has done I believe is made many people associate science with Atheism, which ultimately have very little in common beyond the population-scale ToE. What Dawkins has done is polarize society, and actually presented evidence for the EXISTENCE of God to those who want to see it.
Me personally, I'm neither an atheist nor religious. I don't believe there is a God and I don't believe their isn't a God; the question of whether God exists isn't even a valid question. It's premise is circular and self defeating and has no meaning.
But there aren't problems at the microscopic level!!! Stop lying
The mathematics behind evolution is well established. Don't confuse your ignorance on the matter with academic inadequacy.
No as an atheist there is no one person I look to as a "leader". There is no typical atheists because the only connecting attribute is the lack of a belief in gods. I make my own decisions. I have never been presented with anything that convinces me there is any reason to give anything supernatural more than a passing glance for entertainment purposes only (I love Ghostbusters).
And what are these probabilities you claim and what methodology did you use to come to them?
Huh? How does ones attitude change scientific evidence?
Again please demonstrate this "basic mathematics" that he is denying.
Dear Human beings,
detain the Dawkinimals in the cage, train them how to find the proper place for their penis, probably pseudo-science of eugenics that drove their behavior. Be cautious some of them might be infected by HIV, do let them lick any part of your body.
"The mathematics behind evolution is well established. Don't confuse your ignorance on the matter with academic inadequacy. "
Once again...
In a population of 10,000 individuals, each exhibiting traits for 20,000 different genes, each individual being selected for only one trait at a time,
Each gene represented by 2000 codons, to which we'll be generous and say that 95% must be in the right order, and even one start or stop codon in the wrong place could easily totally destroy the protein....
Given the well accepted types of genetic mutations, deletion, duplication, etc.
... and each individual having only two offspring.
Come on....
I don't feel like doing the math right now but I don't think I need to.
So you don't deny evolution per se, just the physical mechanism? You think that, what? There is something supernatural involved in the production of mutations, such that they aren't random? Well at least that is a somewhat novel position -- silly, but novel.
As I understand it, though, you hold this position due to some vague mathematical argument that you can't fully explain, much less express is hard, empirically-validated, quantifiable terms, and which doesn't seem to account for the vast stretches of time available to evolution -- is that right?
I have no idea why you find such a mess of an "argument" convincing, and don't really care, but I am at a complete loss as to why you think this "argument" would be convincing to anyone else.
I'll admit. Genetics is something that's usually over my head. I'll have to defer to someone who is more on top of that.
I don't see any mention of time frames in your question.
Null Hypothesis wrote:
I don't think Dawkins is a 'typical' atheist; he's an evolutionary biologist and scientist - the vast majority of atheists aren't that, and probably don't cite the ToE as being especially relevant to their atheism. I know I don't - I never accepted the idea of gods even before I'd heard the word 'evolution'. I didn't even know that much about it before becoming a regular visitor to this site.
How does 'smugness' affect science? Which data is undermined or invalidated by the behaviour or attitude of the scientist presenting it?
It doesn't matter if people think Dawkins is a Class-A prick as long as he has the science to back up his claims. Science shouldn't be about the personalities, it should be about the findings.
The only thing that people's perceptions of Dawkins as smug indicates is that people aren't being taught how to think critically.
That is stupid. The atheist literature would be as likely to have such an explanation as a spider man comic book or a book of matches. You need to read the scientific literature> instead. If you don't know the difference between religious, philosophical, and scientific literature you are either 10 years old or retarded.
As to how DNA rearrangements can generate new proteins, we've seen that in real time. The maize cytoplasmic T male sterile factor was cobbled together from bits and pieces of other genes in the last 50 years. This protein turns out to be invaluable in breeding new varities of corn.
Or look up the bacterial nylon degradation enzymes which evolved in real time since the invention of nylon. Talkorigins.org has a simple explanation.
OK, I'm going to do the math. Very rough as you can understand with some simplistic assumptions but it'll be a good reality check.
Let's say a single protein is encoded by 2000 nucleotides, that's what, like 6000 codons, and when you get the introns out (each one of which needs a correct start and stop codon) you're looking at like 20,000 base pairs probably for a decent sized protein (my numbers may be off a bit, it's been a couple years). We'll assume that you need 95% of the nucleotides in the right order, which is probably way too generous. Let's assume it's being altered by deletion or duplication, or translocation.
The lottery is only 6 digits (out of a possible 9 for each) and it's hopelessly unrealistic. We're talking 20,000 numbers, but at least here we have only 4 nucleotides to choose from. But unlike the lottery in which the numbers can come out in any order, with a protein they have to be in a set order. 20,000 numbers, out of a choice of 4, have to be in order. I guess there's some redundancy in the coding of amino acids, but still what are we looking at, like 1 in a quadzillion? It's beyond comprehension. Let's be generous and call it one in a million.
I would stop there because it's so utterly ridiculous. But you can go further down the line.
Here is the kicker. Let's say by chance you do happen to get a beneficial mutation, that one in a million. Well statistically in your genome then, given that these mutations are essentially "random", you're going to have 999,999 bad mutations somewhere else. What is that going to do to you?
"...I don't feel like doing the math right now but I don't think I need to."
No actually, you do. Doing your little example exhibited 20 million possibilities with just the 10k people/20k genes. Now take that out over 3.5 billion years of the 4 billion-year existence of Earth. You beg the question of us that it can't happen, knowing full well that the probability only need be equal to 1, and then refuse to acknowledge the unbelievably immense amount of time that came before life appeared as being able to generate life. If you can beg the question, so can we.
But the point is, we don't have to. We (meaning actual real scientists who support evolutionary theory and knowhow it works...I don't mean myself or anyone here other than PZ) have observed and recorded changes in proteins in labs and mapped out the possibilities. Scientists have witnessed it happening. Not 6 months ago PZ posted a story about lizards on Crete (if I recall the details correctly), and how one species was put on the island to be saved from destruction. In the short amount of time the new species was on the island it had already evolved and taken over another species in numbers, and had adapted quite well to its new environ. Search for it on Google or here.
Null, whether you choose to take evolutionary theory for what it really is matters less than all the math you can throw at us (and then refuse to do). Your lying eyes won't make the truth go away.
Only 10,000 individuals? Only one trait at a time? Just how do you think evolution works?
A single protein is coded by 3 nucleotides, not by 2000.
Assuming all your numbers are correct, and honestly I have no idea but I think you are exaggerating the bad cop good cop mutations... the "bad mutations" either affect fecundity or they don't. Also note you haven't defined good or bad. Mutations might be neither for that population but affect future ones or have no effect at all in regards to reproduction. If they are bad, defined as don't allow that individual to reproduce (via sterility, death or whatever), then they don't get passed on.
And this brings us to your numbers. Where are you showing the time frame that this is occurring?
"How does 'smugness' affect science? Which data is undermined or invalidated by the behaviour or attitude of the scientist presenting it?
It doesn't matter if people think Dawkins is a Class-A prick as long as he has the science to back up his claims. Science shouldn't be about the personalities, it should be about the findings. "
Oh how naive..... what did the Bush administration do to science in the US? The non-scientific public's perception of science is very important to science, and you are mistaken in assuming that the average person is going to fairly and critically analyze scientific issues based on the objective findings. The average person's views at election time ultimately translate into how much funding science gets.
Most mutations in the genetic code are neutral - have no effect on the organisms health. We have about 200 mutations in each of us. While advantageous mutations are rare, they do arise. And thanks to natural selection, those mutations will be passed through a population very quickly. Over a geological scale, there will be an accumulation of these beneficial mutations. Surely that's not hard to see.
"A single protein is coded by 3 nucleotides, not by 2000. "
I don't know what you are talking about. Try wikipedia.
Actually I made a typo, a protein is coded by 6000 nucleotides and 2000 codons, I got it backwards.
The nylonase gene has evolved at least twice. The two studied versions don't appear to be even related. Since nylon is a man made product, nylon degradation has to be a recent de novo adaption.
Whether the math adds up or not is irrelevant. Reality is what happens.
The troll is just channeling Behe, the ID kook. Behe's book was discredited immediately on publication as inaccurate and full of BS and lies.
"But the point is, we don't have to. We (meaning actual real scientists who support evolutionary theory and knowhow it works...I don't mean myself or anyone here other than PZ) have observed and recorded changes in proteins in labs and mapped out the possibilities. Scientists have witnessed it happening. Not 6 months ago PZ posted a story about lizards on Crete (if I recall the details correctly), and how one species was put on the island to be saved from destruction. In the short amount of time the new species was on the island it had already evolved and taken over another species in numbers, and had adapted quite well to its new environ. Search for it on Google or here.
Null, whether you choose to take evolutionary theory for what it really is matters less than all the math you can throw at us (and then refuse to do). Your lying eyes won't make the truth go away"
I agree, up until your last paragraph. You have merely proven my point. Evolution has millions of undeniable examples all over the world. I'd argue that more than anyone. But on a molecular level none of these examples shows that the genetic changes required for this to happen are random or even semi-random; they simply show that they DO happen.
Null hypothesis, there are plenty of papers on the nature of genetics with a mathematical basis. Are you saying all of those are wrong?
How are you proposing they do happen?
But they DO happen. What is the problem?
"Oh how naive..... what did the Bush administration do to science in the US? The non-scientific public's perception of science is very important to science, and you are mistaken in assuming that the average person is going to fairly and critically analyze scientific issues based on the objective findings. The average person's views at election time ultimately translate into how much funding science gets."
While I don't disagree that public perception can be important, it's still entirely germane to the evidence science has come up with. If science showed that a meteor was going to strike Earth next month and wipe out life as we know it, and a group of scientists saw fit to openly mock religion in the interim period, the scientists' mocking (and the public's consequent outrage) would change the situation not a shred. I certainly don't advocate that scientists walk about the Earth as untouchable, arrogant brainiacs. But then, scientists are already NOT doing this. It is the religious apologists that assume that scientists ARE acting in this manner. It is not science pushing arrogance; it is religion. It always has been religion. Reread your history. This is not a difficult pattern to find; it's happening right now. Further, for you and others to come in here and claim that WE are being arrogant, when all we've done is challenge your highly suspect and fallacious claims and understanding of scientific concepts (hundreds of times amid a hail storm of accusations that we're fascists, communists, the source of all evil, etc.), is, well, galling. And it has never engendered respect from us, so we'd advise you all to stop it. If you don't like our fact-based answers, fine. Just don't wet your pants, start crying, and then expect us to yield the floor to your tantrums.
As far as the non-scientific public is concerned, whether a scientist is arrogant or not matters quite little when it's someone needing a treatment for a disease, something that could save their life. And if the public feels it's in its right to become ever more ignorant about science, then so be it. Its distaste for real science will be borne out in short order as a society that ultimately gets passed like so many others by history (to say nothing of other countries who recognize the opportunity being freely given up by another), and one that chose to become stupid, simply because it couldn't handle being told the truth. The point is, arrogance or not, scientific fact is scientific fact, and all the religious waxing in the world won't change it. Never has, never will.
Thanks for the link raven, I actually checked it out myself and am going throught the link to the 470 examples from humans right now!!! Finally I may be getting some answers!
I have actually been wondering for several years about how long it would take for bacteria to evolve to eat plastics!!!
"...Try wikipedia..."
I like Wikipedia as much as the next guy, but if you had been in school at all over the last few years, you'd know that just about nobody regards Wikipedia as a scholarly resource, least of all for a scientific discipline that has so much written about it a single Wikipedia article (even if it were the longest article) still would not capture all the details. Wikipedia is not a substitute for educating yourself in biology.
I thought you said you had all this scientific "background". Why is it you know so damn little? You are asking random questions about pieces of evolution, and then trying to apply your I-just-can't-see-it explanation. You're going about it all wrong, as others are consistently pointing out.
I meant it doesn't matter to the science, jackass. More important, though, is why you are suddenly focusing on public opinion and science funding. I thought your problems were with the maths?
"Further, for you and others to come in here and claim that WE are being arrogant, when all we've done is challenge your highly suspect and fallacious claims and understanding of scientific concepts (hundreds of times amid a hail storm of accusations that we're fascists, communists, the source of all evil, etc.)"
What????? I said nothing of the sort, The worst I said was that Dawkins is smug (nothing unwarranted in that comment), I made an inappropriate comment about the special olympics, and the accusation that scientists are ignoring statistics at the genetic level. It's preposterous for you to be lumping me in with the religious crowd, as I am probably the most non-religious person out there, and as supportive of separation of church and state as can be.
I think Thomsen is on the level - he's dribbling out both sides of his mouth simultaneously.
Geeez - I'm glad I wasn't brought up in America. My admiration to those Americans that have survived unscathed (or otherwise) from the US Education System.
Sigh. Lets try some "real" math:
2,000 individuals, with 200,000 genes, one sex of which produces, lets say 1,000 cells that contain "few" changes at all, most of them of the type like taking the sentence "I have a hat", and changing it to, "I have a hatt.", or, "I hav a hat.", or, "I haev a hat.", none of which, in language, drastically alter the meaning, nor does it do more than make "minor" changes in the resulting protein, kind of like accidentally making a mechanical part in a non-critically sized space 1/8th on an inch too long. Now, the other sex produces say 200,000,000 cells each day, of which maybe 20% are functional, and a million of which get "added" to the system when producing young. Now, lets assume they try to impregnate 10 women each day, now, instead of talking about a population of "full animals", you are talking about reproductive populations of 10 viable females, and like 200,000 "males" that might combine to produce a new animal, and close to 50% of them have a combination of genes that are of the "hat" became "hatt" variety.
So, right from the start, your numbers of pure gibberish. But, it only gets worse when you fail to get something "basic" about genes. Duplication. Starting with the hat sentence:
I have a hat.
I have a hat. a hat. <- duplication.
I have a hat. a rat. <- mutation.
I have a hat. an rat. <- addition.
I have a hat. and rat. <- addition.
I have a hat and a rat. <- deletion.
Oh, damn... Somehow I got an irreducibly complex sentence, with new information, and didn't "break" the original. See, duplications don't always have to be "single" genes, and, for that matter, the "and" could have even been one "insertion", rather than two additions, etc. This presumes, BTW, that white space is not counted, but that just makes it more complicated, not impossible.
Seriously, this stuff is bloody easy to comprehend. Why are so many people unable to do so? Especially programmers? Mind, mechanical engineers have other things going against them, like the fact that they flat out can't "get" languages, which helps, but... I have to wonder how many of the "software engineers", are the sort that keep producing the kind of useless junk I see in store Kiosks, badly made web pages, and $5,000 CAD applications, which use 1/50th the processing power as a first person shooter, the later of which almost never crashes, while the former has been around for 15+ years and still isn't "stable".
In other words, one suspect, strongly, that the don't understand "programming" languages all that well either, and tend to be all of the sort that once showed up here to claim that, "genetic algorithms are useless", because nothing the man ever tried worked, while the military is, somehow, never the less running target acquisition and targeting systems based on them, which perform 500 times better than anything ever written by a human. Basically, the sort of people that you wish "didn't" write anything you had to use, because they failed to grasp "simple" man made languages, never mind something like biological ones, where... well, closest I can describe would be three books. Book one starts out by telling you to open book 2, read page 32, and follow the instructions there, which tells you to do some things, then open book 3, to read page 12, which does some things, then tells you to read book 2, page 400, which tells you to read book 1, page 8, which does some stuff, before sending you to page 87, in itself, which branches to book 3, etc. You need all three, because the books are just instructions on how to "construct" the contents, not the contents themselves, and some moron wrote three of them, which cross reference to the point of pure insanity. Some applications get "close" to this now, especially with load on demand scripts, self modification, huge levels of inter-referencing and interdependence, and some of it isn't humanly predictable, despite the fact that we wrote it **parts** of it in the first place. But, like bodies, we get people tweaking the settings, installing things from third parties, sticking it in hardware with different bugs than the programs expect, etc. And yet, knowing this, and given the cases they "do" run into, where using version 1.3.4 of something causes some wacky behavior, which they can't fix, but neither 1.3.3, nor 1.3.5 does, only it turns out it would do to them using a new USB stick while working on 1.3.3... This stuff happens all the time, yet they imagine that such "irreducible complexity" has to be "intentionally designed" into a system, can't happen by chance, and isn't possible by accident. WTF!!
A programmer that thinks this is an idiot. A mechanical engineer that does.. Should stick to playing with "predictable" things, and hope they never have to design a bridge, part, etc., which has some behavior that doesn't "fit" in "known" models. If they think it doesn't happen in that field either, I have several bridges I would like to sell them, as well as a few other "designed" systems that didn't act in "predictable" ways, and only produced their "unpredictable" results do to, in some cases, absurdly minor errors in measurements, which no one imagined would produce such a "irreducibly complex" result.
"I like Wikipedia as much as the next guy, but if you had been in school at all over the last few years, you'd know that just about nobody regards Wikipedia as a scholarly resource, least of all for a scientific discipline that has so much written about it a single Wikipedia article (even if it were the longest article) still would not capture all the details. Wikipedia is not a substitute for educating yourself in biology.
I thought you said you had all this scientific "background". Why is it you know so damn little? You are asking random questions about pieces of evolution, and then trying to apply your I-just-can't-see-it explanation. You're going about it all wrong, as others are consistently pointing out."
Oh come on, you can't be serious. The person suggested that proteins were coded by 3 nucleotides. This is obviously incorrect and a reference to the relevant wikipeida article is obviously going to set them straight.
You're just grasping at any straws you can find.
Got codon and protein mixed up there.
Talk about irony. You acknowledge that evolution does happen yet grasp at the mathematical impossibility of it all?
" But on a molecular level none of these examples shows that the genetic changes required for this to happen are random or even semi-random; they simply show that they DO happen.
But they DO happen. What is the problem? "
Because the ToE on a population level depends on random emergence of new traits. Yet on a genetic level it seems highly improbable that they emerge randomly. There is a disconnect there which I find intriguing, and as a scientist I want to learn more about it.
Ok.. That is damn odd. The forum let the first line be "seperate" then paragraphed the rest...
I have a hat.I have a hat. a hat.
I have a hat. a rat.
I have a hat. an rat.
I have a hat. and rat.
I have a hat and a rat.
I meant it doesn't matter to the science, jackass. More important, though, is why you are suddenly focusing on public opinion and science funding. I thought your problems were with the maths?
"Talk about irony. You acknowledge that evolution does happen yet grasp at the mathematical impossibility of it all? "
YES!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS!!!!!!!!
In a population of 10,000 individuals
You're just throwing out an arbitrary number here, without doing anything with it. Population size is extremely variable, and you'd have to justify some global mean.
each exhibiting traits for 20,000 different genes
Again, a number you pulled out of your ass for a quantity that varies significantly among organisms. And anyway, the majority of them won't be under selection, but see below.
each individual being selected for only one trait at a time
This is just wrong. You're saying that an animal adapted to cool, wet conditions in an environment growing hotter and drier could only be under selection for one of the following, exclusive of the others: a)less insulation (thinner coat, etc.) b)better water retention c)enhanced radiative cooling (sweating, etc.) d)altered diet (eating water-retentive plants, etc.) e)higher albedo (lighter skin, fur, etc.). Look into the concept of the fitness landscape, and see that multidimensionality is the overwhelming norm.
Furthermore, you're implying that adaptive traits like this are controlled at only one locus (though I suspect that you are just confused about what you mean by "only one trait at a time"), which might only be the case in a) and e). Most adaptations involve selection at numerous loci.
Each gene represented by 2000 codons, to which we'll be generous and say that 95% must be in the right order, and even one start or stop codon in the wrong place could easily totally destroy the protein....
Right, which is why the genome has an incredibly efficient error-correcting mechanism. And of course deletrious mutations happen all the time and they pose no problem for the theory, being quickly weeded out in most circumstances. But most mutations are neutral, and, again, I must say, your "generous" 95% "in the right order" is arbitrary and not illustrative of anything. Many point mutations are actually synonymous, which means they don't change the sense of the triplet affected for coding the right amino acid in the sequence.
Given the well accepted types of genetic mutations, deletion, duplication, etc.
Duplication in and of itself only means there's a spare copy sitting around, the sequence of which can drift without being deletrious. Sometimes drift leads to a functional sequence that codes for a related, but distinct protein. Is your math that you won't do accounting for this sort of complexity, or is a mutation just a mutation?
... and each individual having only two offspring.
Sheesh. One of the central insights of evolution by natural selection is that in practically all populations there is massive overproduction of offspring.
Come on...
No, you come on. You have nothing. Just some unwarranted assumptions, some tossed off round numbers that seem like they should be big enough, and the vague intuition that "it doesn't add up."
I don't feel like doing the math right now but I don't think I need to.
Dunning-Kruger on aisle four!
You have large populations over many generations to bring about mutations. Remember the time scales evolution works in.
At #829 Null Hypothesis wrote:
So, you make an assertion, then ask us if it's valid?!
What "atheist literature" do you claim to have read? And what did that "atheist literature" indicate about how typical it might be for an atheist to "repeatedly try to use science to demonstrate the evidence of their belief in the 'non-existence of God'"? Citations please.
As for myself, I began questioning and doubting the validity of my religion when I was still a child, long before I'd been introduced to any kind of real science class. It was a matter of my thinking critically about what I was being taught, and how what I was being taught failed to match with reality and with my understanding of justice, fairness, morality.
I became an atheist as a young adult still at university. By that time, I had learned about the TOE, but the TOE had absolutely nothing to do with my atheism. I became an atheist not because of the science I'd been taught, but because of the utter absurdity of the religious beliefs I had been taught.
And, I never feel any need whatsoever to "demonstrate" my non-belief in the existence of God. Why would I need to "demonstrate" God doesn't exist? And to whom would I need to demonstrate it?
I don't worry about demonstrating my non-belief in the existence of unicorns, monsters under my bed, the tooth fairy, or bad weather demons, so why should I worry about demonstrating my non-belief in the Abrahamic God, Thor, Zeus, Vesta, Itzamna, Vishnu, or any other mythological deity?
Apologies for the double post. Wrong button.
Again I ask, what mathematical impossibility? There have been plenty of simulations and papers done on the mathematical likelihood, yet none of them have invalidated evolutionary theory. Are you saying all those papers are wrong?
"Mind, mechanical engineers have other things going against them, like the fact that they flat out can't "get" languages, which helps, but... I have to wonder how many of the "software engineers", are the sort that keep producing the kind of useless junk I see in store Kiosks, badly made web pages, and $5,000 CAD applications, which use 1/50th the processing power as a first person shooter, the later of which almost never crashes, while the former has been around for 15+ years and still isn't "stable"."
Well I was going to actually seriously consider your post up until that comment, after which I stopped.
I picked up Spanish in 3 months while travelling in South America. I am also an ecologist and semi-professional zoologist, and took up to 3rd year biology courses.
Can you stop talking about hats and instead move into the real world of DNA and proteins.
Null Hypothesis is just a garden variety creationist troll. When you call him on his lies and bullshit he changes the subject or ignores your points.
Another Liar, Hater, and Killer for jesus.
He is also just channeling Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution or some such. A discredited body of pseudoscience written by a religious creationist kook.
Wasting your time but not wasting mine. It is midnight PST and time for some dreams.
Well, as I said in my rather long post, you get two things wrong:
1. You assume a population size that looks at "individuals", not number of cells. Unless you are talking about single cell organisms, this is ridiculous, and if you where, then you would be looking at populations of billions, not thousands, so.. still flawed.
2. You seem to presume that "ever" sequence produces a unique protein, but it doesn't, or even when it does, the result is often "close enough" that it doesn't matter, like trading two different brands of antifreeze off in an engine, unless one has a temperature range that is drastically different, and your running in -20 degree weather, or 120 degree weather, or some similar extreme, the engine isn't going to care. Same with most "similar" fuels. It doesn't have to be "optimal", and even the "optimal" one can be achieved chemically via several "similar" pathways. You might be more or less byproduct, which messes with efficiency of the cell, but you are not going to get a total failure, unless the change is so serious that it break the protein entirely. And, even that isn't "always" fatal, if you have redundant copies.
You trying to look at the odds of 1 solution in 5 billion, or something silly like that, when in fact their may be 500 solutions, in 5 million. If you use the wrong numbers, you get the "wrong" statistics. And, much of those numbers may have been far more critical "early on" than they are now, where the system has developed a lot of redundancy.
But, as for understanding the whole mess. This is a real kick:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090214-weird-life.html
Look, forget about the origin of complex traits for a moment. Your math has to work for the present first. We know that mutations happen, right? Each human has about 175 new mutations compared to his or her parents. Most of these are neutral but some are deleterious and still fewer are beneficial.
Now, since we know that each new generation has a lot of mutations, and yet no species has offspring that are 99.9% "gimps", your math is worthless. You have to at least allow that selection gets rid of the deleterious mutations that occur in each generation.
Dude, I meant program languages, not fracking Spanish. I know almost 10 program languages and can't remember more than 5 words from the Spanish I took in high school. Its like insisting on not reading the rest of my post because I suggested that some people can't "cook food" and you where offended because you where an expert at "mixing drinks". Related doesn't mean same, and there is bloody little practical resemblance, beyond the need, in most cases, for computer languages to be human readable, between say C# and Swahili.
Good morning again.
Ah, so you are making exactly the mistake I expected you to make. The most egregious false assumption is that there's only one possible sequence (except for a few amino acids that are unimportant) that's useful. This is not demonstrated.
The fact is, you have to consider the difficult question of how large is the space of possible proteins that would serve their function. You can't just assume there's only one possible functional protein sequence.
Then you have to consider that the model doesn't resemble anything like the way evolution works. It's not a random jumbling of nucleotides getting re-arranged willy nilly. It's mutations occurring in existing proteins, most of which have little to no effect on their carriers.
If you're looking for a replicator forming de novo then you're properly concerned with abiogenesis, not evolution. But the argument doesn't work there either because you're making an unjustifiable assumption and question-begging.
Read this article if you're interested in seeing someone talk about it more thoroughly. Pay particular attention to the section "search spaces, or how many needles in the haystack?" It should show you exactly why the argument you're making is begging the question.
This is another common statistical fallacy. It's like saying that because a lotto player has a 50^-6 (or whatever) chance of winning, that anyone who wins must have bought 50^6 tickets. That's just plain silly.
Of course, your "million" was not as generous as you made it out to be because your model of mutation assumes that genes are forming from random assembly of nucleic acids de novo (rather than by modification of existing genes by successive point mutations), and because you make the assumption that there's only one possible way for a protein to be beneficial (up to 95% variation from a specific sequence).
Just curious Null Hypothesis, have you read either No Free Lunch or The Edge Of Evolution?
Well, that is the point of what I said really, if a woman has 5,000 chances to produce offspring, and each attempt by a man produces millions of candidates to match up with that, then you get.. 5 successful candidates from the woman, and 1,000 valid candidates to combine with them. So, even his numbers "allow" for a highly sexual species to produce more than two offspring.
Now, in reality its 1:5 successes from impregnation and an unknown number of failures, so his numbers "are" wrong. Part of that is he fails to consider that "critical" errors probably only happen in like 20% of the genetic system (since there are duplicates), and that probably 50% of mutations are not lethal at all, so.. you actually have like 2,500 possible, with 500,000 viable matches, without taking into account criticality. And if you add that, then with 20,000 genes (if you want to use that silly number) you get only 4,000 critical positions (presuming 20% are critical), in which case you have 16,000 genes for those 157 mutations to hide in, even if "all" of them where lethal, since you have second copies of "every one of them".
But, fact is, we are just making up numbers here, not dealing with the real ones (some of which is unknown), but even with the made up numbers, when you stop making bogus assumptions, that leave out non-critical duplicates, the real world numbers for births from conception, and other things that fowl the numbers, the result is still "possible", by a bloody wide margin.
Null-Hypothesis,
I think the first errors made in your "maths" are the assumptions underpinning it, as is usually the case with these kind of back of the envelope "probability calculations".
First and foremost you're talking about the genes, and the genome, of a REAL organism. The "molecular machinery" (and yes I'm oversimplifying here) that that organism has includes "copying fidelity apparatus" that helps to preserve the original sequence of the DNA. This is not perfect copying fidelity, nor maintenance of it (obviously, otherwise mutations could not occur!), but it weeds out many of the seriously deleterious things.
Also, much of a modern organism's genome (varies depending on species) is non-functional, the result of insertions etc by endogenous retroviruses (Paging Abbie Smith!) and the like. Mutations frequently occur outside of the sections of an organism's genome which code for protein.
Lastly, an organism has the offspring it has, it doesn't have to have all possible offspring to "strike lucky" on a beneficial mutation. Remember there is no foresight in this process, the environment and the organism's interaction with it after the fact of mutation decide whether a specific mutation is "beneficial" or not (just FYI, as implied above most mutations are neutral). As others have explained, the fixing of a specific genetic trait in a population takes generations. Your "quadrillions" sound enormous for one breeding organism, but then we've never been dealing with one breeding organism, we're dealing with populations of millions of organisms over (depending on what sort of traits you're looking for) hundreds to thousands to millions of generations.
If I might be so bold, despite you claim to scientific education, your appear not to have much of a clue about the relevant science. Even though you seem to think he's smug, I'd strongly recommend Richard Dawkins' popularisations of this stuff as an entry level. You could even pick up a textbook on population genetics if this stuff was too picayune for you.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point: it's not that the maths doesn't add up, it's that your maths is an erroneous treatment of a complex system which has more features than you've given it credit. It is not a simple "lottery" type probability issue. The model you are trying to make does not fit the reality of the system you are applying it to. Hence the maths is erroneous.
So please, and others have given you links for this, go and review your genetics courses, take some courses/read up on population genetics etc, you'll find that (despite your apparent belief to the contrary) that scientists in the relevant disciplines have considered this issue before and come up with some pretty wonderful answers. The worst place to find this stuff out is the comment section of a blog. Perhaps start with the Talk Origins archive, the resources of several universities online that discuss this stuff (google is your friend). You'd be better off with an hour's considered googling than ranting/getting ranted at in the comments section of a blog. But then actual attempts at scholarly reserach take, well effort, and we at Pharyngula are unfortunately horribly familiar with people unwilling/unable to do that. Please don't fall into that category, it would be a terrible shame.
Cheers
Louis
P.S. Atheism: Derived from the Greek "theos" or god, theism denotes a belief in a god, the prefix "a" denotes a lack or absence, "a-theism" is literally a lack of belief in god. It is not an insignificant semantic issue, it is a fundamentally different claim from "belief in lack of god". The epistemological basis is vastly different. There have been various attempts to coin terms to show the difference between "belief in lack" and "lack of belief". Atheism in the sense of a (essentially faith based) claim that god does not exist has been variously called strong atheism, explicit atheism, antitheism or my own preferred term: anterotheism (literally diametric opposition to theism). Lack of belief in god in the sense of a (reason and evidence based) claim that one does not believe in god because no valid positive case has been made for god's existence has been variously called weak atheism, intrinsic atheism or my own preferred term: atheism (literally absence of theism).
Agnosticism is a different thing altogether. Again the word is derived from the Greek, this time the word "gnosos" denoting knowledge, and with that prefix "a" denoting lack. So "a-gnosticism" is literally the (more usually faith based) claim that the question of the existence of god cannot be known. I've seen a couple of attempts to put agnosticism on an epistemologically rational footing, but essentially it's always fallen foul of the same problem that "strong atheism" has, for all conceptions of god you need to examine all of the universe at all time and hence have to resort to a faith based claim. That's not to say that this rather extreme form of agnosticism is representative of all of it btw. Anyway, the epistemologicially milder forms of agnosticism are compatible with atheism, theism, polytheism, pantheism, deism etc etc. Agnosticism is a "bolt on" to belief, or lack of, in god or gods. It is a claim about the "knowability" of god's existence, not that existence itself. Hope this helps.
He read this when he spoke. It was awesome.
I was at the lecture at The University of Oklahoma and had a great time. The crowd was very diverse. It included a republican atheist asking a question. Dawkins suggested he become a democrat since he was having trouble finding a job and the person asking Prof. Dawkins said he wants to try to stay a republican to hope to bring some reason to the party. I admire his effort but I feel it will be futile.
Dawkins was there until near 11:00 local time as I left at 10:30 and he still had the volunteers left to sign their books. He looks really tired after signing about 1500 books with his name. Many people, including myself, had multiply copies as well.
It was nice to welcome him with a standing ovation though he made the comment, "You haven't heard me speak yet."
The people of the audience came from as far as Dallas and I traveled about 120 miles to be there. The best part beside hearing his lecture was to be able to converse with other atheist without having to qualify yourself as an atheist.
I gathered and shared many stores from many of the people sitting near me and while in lines at two different times of the evenings event.
I was fortunate to be able to ask Prof. Dawkins a question. It was one that I had tried several times to find answers for. It concerned the possibility of multiple origins of life when life began to evolve on Earth. I had never seen this question addressed and felt it was a good one to ask. I was not disappointed.
His answer was very long and at one point I was thinking that he may have gotten off topic. By the end of his reply he tied all the elements together and it really helped me understand much better.
The volunteers had copies of the Resolution to hand out to the attendees prior to the lecture and when I heard about it I just had to hang my head in sorrow. Rep, Thomsen revealed himself to be a fool of high office. The resolution was the first thing that Dawkins addressed and it was meet with several rounds of applause as he made comments.
After the even I went to Taco Bell, as almost everything else was closed, and had my meal with two of the volunteers that traveled from OSU. I asked them about the attendance and I believe they said it was about 2500. This makes since as the building has a capacity of 3000 and the part of the field house closest to the stage was left mostly empty.
Tword the beginning of the lecture, Dawkins showed the infamous Ray Comfort "banana nightmare" video. It was funny seeing the reaction of people seeing it for the first time.
Dawkins mentioned the Comfort had offered him $10,000 to debate him. Which he refused. Dawkins made a counter offer that is Comfort would donate $100,000 to an organization that he would then take him up on it. I do not recall what the organization is for sure but I have the website oklascience.org in my notes. However I do not think it is that one. I am sure he will, if not already have information about that challence on the website soon.
To end, the lecture was on, The Purpose of Purpose. Dawkins brought some new terms to me such as archeo-purpose and neo-purpose. The presentation was good and I looked back several times to look at the audience and during the whole time all eyes seemed fixed on Dawkins or his overhead screen. It was a very pleasant time for all but one stray cat that got lost. I heard they just kicked him off campus, no arrest.
Life in a Bottle
Anyone old enough in 1953 to understand the import of the news remembers how shocking, and to many, exhilarating, it was. Scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had succeeded in creating "the building blocks" of life in a flask. Mimicking what were believed to be the natural conditions of the early Earth's atmosphere, and then sending an electric spark through it, Miller and Urey had formed simple amino acids. As amino acids are the "building blocks" of life, it was thought just a matter of time before scientists could themselves create living organisms.
At the time, it appeared a dramatic confirmation of evolutionary theory. Life wasn't a "miracle." No outside agency or divine intelligence was necessary. Put the right gasses together, add electricity, and life is bound to happen. It's a common event. Carl Sagan could thus confidently predict on PBS that the planets orbiting those "billlllions and billlllions" of stars out there must be just teeming with life.
There were problems, however. Scientists were never able to get beyond the simplest amino acids in their simulated primordial environment, and the creation of proteins began to seem not a small step or couple of steps, but a great, perhaps impassable, divide.
The telling blow to the Miller-Urey experiment, however, came in the 1970's, when scientists began to conclude that the Earth's early atmosphere was nothing like the mixture of gasses used by Miller and Urey. Instead of being what scientists call a "reducing," or hydrogen-rich environment, the Earth's early atmosphere probably consisted of gasses released by volcanoes. Today there is a near consensus among geochemists on this point. But put those volcanic gasses in the Miller-Urey apparatus, and the experiment doesn't work — in other words, no "building blocks" of life.
What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact? By and large, they ignore it and continue to use the Miller- Urey experiment to convince students that scientists have demonstrated an important first step in the origin of life. This includes the above-mentioned Molecular Biology of the Cell, co-authored by the National Academy of Sciences president, Bruce Alberts. Most textbooks also go on to tell students that origin-of-life researchers have found a wealth of other evidence to explain how life originated spontaneously — but they don't tell students that the researchers themselves now acknowledge that the explanation still eludes them. (Jonathan Wells)
We've come a long way since 1953. The problem is not solved yet, but there has been progress none-the-less. Still any scientific work is more sound than saying Goddidit and leaving it at that,
From Apes to Humans
Darwin's theory really comes into its own when it is applied to human origins. While he scarcely mentioned the topic in The Origin of Species, Darwin later wrote extensively about it in The Descent of Man. "My object," he explained, "is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties" — even morality and religion. According to Darwin, a dog's tendency to imagine hidden agency in things moved by the wind "would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods."
Of course, the awareness that the human body is part of nature was around long before Darwin. But Darwin was claiming much more. Like materialistic philosophers since ancient Greece, Darwin believed that human beings are nothing more than animals.
Darwin, however, needed evidence to confirm his conjecture. Although Neanderthals had already been found, they were not then considered ancestral to humans, so Darwin had no fossil evidence for his view. It wasn't until 1912 that amateur paleontologist Charles Dawson announced that he had found what Darwinists were looking for, in a gravel pit at Piltdown, England.
Dawson had found part of a human skull and part of an apelike lower jaw with two teeth. It wasn't until forty years later that a team of scientists proved that the Piltdown skull, though perhaps thousands of years old, belonged to a modern human, while the jaw fragment was more recent, and belonged to a modern orangutan. The jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil, and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. Piltdown Man was a forgery.
Most modern biology textbooks do not even mention Piltdown. When critics of Darwinism bring it up, they are usually told that the incident merely proves that science is self-correcting. And so it was, in this case — though the correction took over forty years. But the more interesting lesson to be learned from Piltdown is that scientists, like everyone else, can be fooled into seeing what they want to see.
The same subjectivity that prepared the way for Piltdown continues to plague human-origins research. According to paleoanthropologist Misia Landau, theories of human origins "far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone and in fact place a heavy burden of interpretation on the fossil record — a burden which is relieved by placing fossils into pre-existing narrative structures." In 1996, American Museum of Natural History Curator Ian Tattersall acknowledged that "in paleoanthropology, the patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our unconscious mindsets as from the evidence itself." Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote: "We select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions." Clark suggested that "paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of science."
Biology students and the general public are rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human origins that is reflected in these statements by scientific experts. Instead, they are simply fed the latest speculation as though it were a fact. And the speculation is typically illustrated with fanciful drawings of cave men, or pictures of human actors wearing heavy make-up. (Jonathan Wells)
Four words: Argument from Personal Incredulity
Nice notpology, jerk.
Simon, you've pissed your credibility completely out the window by citing Jonathan Wells, but here are some things I would say to him if he were in this thread:
Of course we can. So what? People aren't fucking objective. Those who tell you that scientists are objective with a capital O have most likely never done any science. Again I ask, so what?
Here's the thing, Johnny: science works.
Don't think so? Then stop using it. Oh wait, that would require you to be internally consistent. Shit, being internally consistent immediately gets your creationist credentials revoked, doesn't it?
We're not claiming that science is perfect, you asshat. Those are words that you wankers like to put in our mouths. It's like those xian assholes (I'm also looking at you, BS) who complain that the ToE doesn't explain where morality comes from. It never claimed to, so why should anyone care that it doesn't? That was something that you xians decided to hold it responsible for, and then piss and moan about it not providing. Gravity doesn't explain morality, either. Nor does Atomic Theory explain the "human condition." Where are all the xians who are pissing and moaning about that? Why aren't you holding gravitation theory as responsible for not explaining things it was never designed to explain? It's completely obvious that you all haven't got the first fucking clue what the word theory means in a scientific context, but oh, that won't stop you from making judgments. Seriously, do you get pissed off at your carpenter because the method she uses to fix your roof is entirely unsuccessful in rebuilding your fireplace?
So what if exposing Piltdown took 40 years? Since when are you the arbiter of how fast we work? You have somewhere to go? Guess what? We don't answer to you. And yes, Piltdown does demonstrate that science is self-correcting. Next? And why did science self-correct in this instance? Because science always self-corrects. That's what it does. Because...wait for it: science works.
Guess what never corrects science? Creationism (except by occasionally putting up a testable hypothesis that we pound into shreds (e.g., the flud)). Why? Because as much as the creationists like to whine and complain about shit, guess what they never do any of? Work. They would never uncover a forgery, because it would require them to actually do something. You know, something other than lie about scientific data (pretty much the only thing I've ever seen IDiots/YECs/OECs do to advance their ideas).
WE (scientists) uncovered Piltdown. WE (scientists) uncovered Archaeoraptor. You guys just pointed and laughed (glass fucking houses anyone?). Well, guess what--we're mature enough to admit that we make mistakes and have some assholes in our midst. Moreover, we don't grope for your fucking approval. And, interestingly, all the time that you're sitting there pointing and laughing at science (because, OH NOEZ, someone on the science side is a dishonest asshole (what, as opposed to the membership of your entire fucking side?)), you're using the benefits of science to point and laugh. BOOOM! There goes another irony meter. Which of course you miss completely because learning the actual definitions of words is teh hard.
Seriously, do you think that the fact that Ted Haggard is fuckwad seriously impacts the question of whether or not the Abrahamic god is real? That's what trying to use a forgery that was exposed by science to poke holes in the ToE is like. Logic is just completely fucking lost on you people, isn't it? Why, because learning anything is teh hard?
It wasn't subjectivity that paved the way for Piltdown. Please learn some history. Well, first, I guess learn what the word "learn" means.
The rest of the screed is a bunch of quote-mining babble written by someone with no knowledge of taphonomy. It's not worth the time to piss on it.
Thanks, Simon. That was a fun way to start the day.
What else have you got?
@Thomas True:
Thanks for the comprehensive report, I wish I could have been there.
I'd like to hear about his response to that question. Could you give a summary?
Simple Simon the idiot Lieman is back with his insane ramblings. Try not cutting and pasting if you want us to read.
When Null Hypothesesis appeared I could instantly see the randomly generated sequence "I HAD A RAT" had appeared. Within just a few posts this had mutated to "I HAD A TWAT". Magically (for there is no other explantion), this sequence dulpicated to "I HAD A TWAT I HAD A TWAT" with Simon's emergence from the slime.
What I would like to know, and this must be a problem for evolutionary biology, is how come two total twats emerged fully formed from nothing, or more specifically, from zeroes?
Yep, Null was a creobot idiot as expect. Why do they always think we aren't five steps ahead of them? [/rhetorical]
Yet you claim at least third year biochem? I call shenanigans. Not even a first year would make that mistake. Hell, not even a high school student of bio would.
Why does no-one ever answer my rhetorical questions?
A duck.
Null Hypothesis wrote:
As all readers of the Gospels of St. Pratchett know "a million-to-one chance succeeds nine times out of ten."
Simon in post #884 is plagiarizing from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution.
Why does no-one ever answer my rhetorical questions?
A duck.
Very clever, Mr Smartypants. I would point out, however, that a rhetorical answer is not what I was after. Or is it?
I'm sure one of the many denizens, minions and ilk that infest this blog can answer questions about rhetoric.
'Tis 895
In fairness, he does finally list Wells at the end of that POS. Poor sod - has no ideas of his own and then the ones he elects to steal are of such sad quality.
Simon *882
Master dipshit Wells might like to re-evaluate his analysis..but best not to hold breath though!
Hard luck Simon...it is an epic fail for all the assorted creotards & IDiots suckin air and expelling effluent !
Life in a bottle
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm
In the process of reading a book by Behe. He goes through some of the issues mentioned by Simon and it's quite interesting especially since he himself is a biochemist.
Surprise, Pete "total fool" Rooke thinks Behe is a real scientist. Pete, Behe was a real scientist at one time, but now he is a professional liar for the Disinformation Institute. His performance in the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial was laughable. At one point in the trial Behe proclaimed that he had now knowledge of how the immune system evolved and nobody was writing on it. The lawyer questioning Behe then stacked about a dozen textbooks in front of Behe, all with titles like Evolution and the Immune System, leaving Behe totally slack-jawed. Behe has no credibility anymore, your admiring him gives you lower credibility.
"...your admiring him gives you lower credibility."
Whoa, Pete still has some left?
Well, on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the highest, Pete's credibility is in the negative numbers, and still sinking.
I see creobots are still trying to push the Piltdown thing, as if they were the ones that found it to be a hoax. Simon you creobot idiots didn't expose Piltdown as a hoax, science did. Without science you wouldn't have known; that's the whole point.
Continuing to whine about Piltdown as if religion had anything to do with that particular chapter's resolution is just another example of creobots trying to misappropriate other peoples' hard work for their own ends.
"Oh come on, you can't be serious. The person suggested that proteins were coded by 3 nucleotides. This is obviously incorrect and a reference to the relevant wikipeida article is obviously going to set them straight.
You're just grasping at any straws you can find."
Uh, no, I'm quite serious you idiot. Talk to any professor in any field; as a student you can't cite Wikipedia as a SCHOLARLY resource on anything. Note the distinction. You apparently missed it. And if you do think Wikipedia is SCHOLARLY, it betrays that your a rather easy sell...which explains a lot.
Not everyone in Oklahoma is an idiot.. In fact, we house most of them in the northeast part of the capitol, Oklahoma City.. We call it "The State Legislature, and Governor's Mansion".
It was a quality lecture last night in Norman with the place full to the rafters. Not everyone in Oklahoma is completely crazy, just an unfortunate majority.
Thank you guys,
I came here , hoping I could silently learn things . I have spent a month reading and , I should say , thought I have to learn somewhere else to understand anything . You made me wrong (I think that's ok to say it, but just in case, I usualy speak french(french canadian here)) in this conversation.
Explanations made that simple in a way to make Pete understand , helped me a lot to understand too.
I would say, this page is : TOTAL SCIENCE EXPLAINED FOR THE NULL , which I was .
Thanks a lot .
P.S. I already was a science bieliver, but I was only , naturaly till now.
Whups.... I came in too late for this. I thought that Null could use some more help. Here Null, try auditing the courses at the MIT Open Courseware.
On another note, not doing your homework and asking poor questions in a blog filled with atheists & scientists is kind of like going into a bar where all the cops hang out to ask if anyone can help you catch the guy who stole your drugs.
If you choose to display passive-aggressive behavior while basing your questions on a poor understanding of the subject, you are likely to be laughed at.
Behe. Hilarious.
Pete I'm not shocked one bit that you find Behe "quite interesting".
Ahhh Behe. Came up with an evolution killer - that had already been proposed by a biologist almost 80 years earlier. Calls his discovery the most important since Einstein, yet 13 later still hasn't bothered to publish a paper on it. No surprise that Pete Rooke is finding the book fascinating - the Dunning-Kruger effect for all to see!
Fol de rol rol, I am the troll.
"Evolution is mathematically impossible"
"Behe says... irreducibliy complex"
"I don't see how that can happen randomly"
UGH... same hackneyed arguments over, and over, and over.
Simon, Null, Pete... read Climbing Mount Improbable , or go to the FAQ on talkorigins.com. Seriously. I'm amazed and impressed with the level of patience some of the above posters are showing, but this is getting ridiculous. Null, you might be legitimately asking these things, in which case I apologise for the troll label. The other two are nothing but that.
You may be reading the book, but remember that Dawkins has already read it. And not only that too, but Dawkins has spent decades reading up on other things about evolution - so much so that he's written several books on the matter that are praised by scientists and non-scientists alike. Maybe it would do you good to actually pick up some of Dawkins' work, and for ID read Miller - Only A Theory? and Shermer - Why Darwin Matters. Maybe even picking up Jerry Coyne's - Why Evolution Is True could help you out there.
Coyne's review of The Edge Of Evolution is really good too.
You're right, but Kel probably meant that one amino acid is coded by 3 nucleotides.
Is that why you're talking about Kel's mistake rather than addressing your own far more copious errors?
Yeah, got that way wrong. It's a little embarrassing, though still not as embarrassing as taking Behe seriously.
Calladus @909
thanks for the info on MIT. Petey - here's your chance to actually learn about stuff you have opinions on.
Null Hypothesis claims to have studied 3rd year Biochem, but then @839 babbles,
2000 nucleotides would be 666 codons.
I'll be generous and assume that you mean amino acids.
Introns don't have their own start and stop codons. Start and stop codons effect ribosomes, introns are removed by the spliceosome post-translation.
Why would that be way too generous?
Try way too conservative. Outside of the active and binding sites, the amino acid sequence in most proteins is fairly flexible. The nucleotide sequence even more so. You'd know that if you had even studied genetics or biochemistry.
Malcolm,
I remember studying that very thing in 400 level biochem. We had a matrix that allowed us to look at the probability of switching and amino acid for any other based on structural/stearic constraints and if you figure there's further flexibility in sequence for individual aminos it doesn't become very unlikely at all.
hi. I went to the Dawkins speech and it was excellent. I am also an Oklahoman. Please internet people dont think that all Oklahomans are brainwashed Christians. I may be an Oklahoman but I'm not an idiot. some of the people in the my state and legislature do not realize the freedom of speech or of assembly. Please do not think all Oklahomans are bumbling idiots, there are a few of us who actually accept eachother's beliefs without judgment. unlike many of our senators or representatives.
I was at the talk that Richard Dawkins made from Oklahoma, and as you can guess I am indeed an Oklahoma resident. I am inclined to agree that the legislation is indeed a joke, and the truth is Dawkins did indeed give his speech regardless. In Dawkins own words he was
"sure this did not represent the people of Oklahoma" and the packed fieldhouse cheered wildly.
I am sad that the stat has such a negative opinion, but for all you people knocking "Okies",
Fuck you.
Fuck you- you should have been there.
Yes, its true, there is a lot of Christian infrastructure and ignorance in our state, but there's a lot of forward thinking individuals here too, and the truth is we need your support, lest we hand this state over to the "bastards". The last thing we need is to get painted with such a broad stroke!!
How are you helping out the people who live here and oppose ignorance by pointing and laughing? Don't you think we get it bad enough? All oklahomans aren't fools, and if you think that YOU are the fool!!!
And oh yeah, Nerd of Redhead, OM, we don't have an ocean but we DO have the most inland saltwater port in the country;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Port_of_Catoosa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTmYfFye7Hg
There. That is what i was posting about.
Jesse, I was merely trying for comic effect, which is not my forte. I have been to Tulsa and remember the red sandstone buildings at the Tulsa University (not Oral Roberts) there. I remember looking in the phone book under bookstores and seeing porn places next to xian stores.
Nerd, that's bullshit. You're always funny.
re me @918
Whoops! Lets try that again.
Stop and start codons effect transcription. Introns are removed post-transcription by the spliceosome.
That will teach me for trying to comment within 10 minutes of reading a Pete Rooke comment. The Stupid, it burned!
All this talk of codons and introns and then we have Pete, Alan Clarke, Leon, Nat and Simon.
morons.
...not doing your homework and asking poor questions in a blog filled with atheists & scientists is kind of like going into a bar where all the cops hang out to ask if anyone can help you catch the guy who stole your drugs.
Nice.
that one's going in my "save" file.
Jesse,
Pointing and laughing draws attention to the issue. Issues in the public consciousness tend to get addressed faster than those that aren't, as more people become engaged.
On the contrary, I feel for you. I live in a much more tolerant place.
Calm down.
Did Simon ever decide whether he wanted to be a follower of Re. Sung Yung Moon?
I mean, since he likes to cite his devoted follower, John Corrigan (aka Jonathan Wells) so much.
so, Simon, I guess you know that the good Rev. is actually JC reborn, right?
no?
one must wonder about the vast sums of knowledge poor Simon is unfamiliar with.
Amen brother.
Simon sez:
I get so upset when Dawkins suggests we can blithely bin all of theology and consign it to the scrapheap.
LOL
Dawkins isn't the only one. most Theology profs in the US these days think the field should be divied up between sociology, anthropology and philosophy. Participants would be much less limited, and actually be able to apply their brains beyond the circular logic found in dusty old tomes written by goatherders.
Look up Hector Avalos sometime.
or read his most famous book:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362
Theology is dead.
next?
that a rhetorical answer is not what I was after. Or is it?
what you wanted was a rhetorical answer, not an answer.
Now this is an answer.
I think.
I wonder if Simon would care if he knew I was in the same building as Wells (used to have lunch with him *shudder*) when we were both grad students at Berkeley?
naww, probly not.
as a native Oklahoman, I feel like I should apologize for some of the idiots in this state! And there are plenty of them to apologize for!
I live in Tulsa but I do not consider myself either a fundamentalist or even a christian! But there is plenty of narrow minded religious freaks in this area.
I agree with many of the comments on this board! It does seem hypocritical to say that they appreciate differing opinions and then say that they want to ban Dawkins from coming to this state!
Oh well, I guess we've come to expect that from politicians, especially christian politicians but it still seems wrong to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time!
{This is a comment about a question that I asked at the Norman, OK lecture during the Q&A time. (reposted)
Mark Jones, I missed your question addressed to me. First, I was very nervous asking the question and second I didn't have my notebook to write the points down, so I will have to highlight and paraphrase, which is bad.
The overview of my multi-origins question to Prof. Dawkins.
1) He made the allegory that when you lose your keys you look under the lamp post because that is where the light is. (This relates to that there is the possiblity that life may have evolved and died out prior to it taking foothold in what we are currently aware of.
2) He mentioned the work of two scientist that I was not aware of their names prior to this. But the result of the research touched upon that the view of DNA research had determine that once DNA was established the four chain amino acids were "'frozen' in place." This indicates that since all life known on Earth is based upon the four series that the conclusion is that all known life had a common origin.
3) Dawkins mentioned that it is possible that life could be based upon some other set of building blocks, even here on Earth. This was toward the end of his answer. But this really points to discovery of life extra-terrestrial.
4) He didn't give a "yes" or "no" answer. As a good scientist should avoid. But the conclusion I gather is: Yes there could have been multi-origins of life but if they did, they were evolutionary dead ends of those organisms became food for the current set of DNA based life. But as far as Biology and other science support, Only DNA based life is know to exist in the universe.
The point went something like this. Regardless of how common or rare life is, it has happened at least one time. (this got a chuckle from the audience) "We know this because we are here." But depending on the yet to be discovered million and millions of stars and yet undiscovered planets to find life on will lead to the answer to this type of question.
In another part of the lecture Dawkins said there are countless questions that we do not have answers to. This seems to be one that we can asked but not answer from out limited place in space and time.
I hope that helps you Mark Jones. I hope I can find the video some day. I asked after the event and the tape doesn't belong to The Department of Zoology at The University of Oklahoma and they felt it belongs to Dawkins.
I live in Oklahoma and I contacted my local Representative. I am posting his reply here so people can see that not all legislators are as far right as Rep. Thomsen is. I am proud that I live in one of the minority districts that has a democrat representing us.
"Thomas, Thanks for writing. For some people the issues are moral news releases in their district and for others following the constitution. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I vote no against involvement of church and state.
Ken
Representative Ken Luttrell
Proudly Serving District 37
State Capitol
2300 N Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, Ok 73105-4885
1-800-522-8502"
[To the tune of Oklahoma]
(First verse not as well known)
Legislate! Legislate gonna discriminate!
Gonna write HR 1014 and 1015
Stop Dawkins from speakin, telling’ lies of evolution
Diversity ain’t for learnin’ things, It’s for learning what I know.
Plen’y of people will plen’y agree
Plen’y of Jesus to take free speech
Plen’y of Todd Thomsen to look like a dope.
Oklahoma, where Todd Thomsen legislates too late.
Where the fear of God helps hides his nog
Though the facts lay all across the plains.
He knows that Jesus was a man
Because the Bible says he was grand
And then he says --Darwin! We don‘t need none that hollin‘!
Please get a brain Todd Thomsen
Todd Thomsen--OK!!!
They All Look Alike: Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
Most introductory biology textbooks carry drawings of vertebrate limbs showing similarities in their bone structures. Biologists before Darwin had noticed this sort of similarity and called it "homology," and they attributed it to construction on a common archetype or design. In The Origin of Species, however, Darwin argued that the best explanation for homology is descent with modification, and he considered it evidence for his theory.
Darwin's followers rely on homologies to arrange fossils in branching trees that supposedly show ancestordescendant relationships. In his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra compared the fossil record to a series of Corvette models: "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious."
But Berra forgot to consider a crucial, and obvious, point: Corvettes, so far as anyone has yet been able to determine, don't give birth to little Corvettes. They, like all automobiles, are designed by people working for auto companies. In other words, an outside intelligence. So although Berra believed he was supporting Darwinian evolution rather than the pre-Darwinian explanation, he unwittingly showed that the fossil evidence is compatible with either. Law professor (and critic of Darwinism) Phillip E. Johnson dubbed this : "Berra's Blunder."
The lesson of Berra's Blunder is that we need to specify a natural mechanism before we can scientifically exclude designed construction as the cause of homology. Darwinian biologists have proposed two mechanisms: developmental pathways and genetic programs. According to the first, homologous features arise from similar cells and processes in the embryo; according to the second, homologous features are programmed by similar genes.
But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.
Without a mechanism, modern Darwinists have simply defined homology to mean similarity due to common ancestry. According to Ernst Mayr, one of the principal architects of modern neo-Darwinism: "After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that makes biological sense: Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor."
This is a classic case of circular reasoning. Darwin saw evolution as a theory, and homology as its evidence. Darwin's followers assume evolution is independently established, and homology is its result. But you can't then use homology as evidence for evolution except by reasoning in a circle: Similarity due to common ancestry demonstrates common ancestry.
Philosophers of biology have been criticizing this approach for decades. As Ronald Brady wrote in 1985: "By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained, we express not scientific hypothesis but belief. We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we were trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science." So how do the textbooks treat this controversy? Once again, they ignore it. In fact, they give students the impression that it makes sense to define homology in terms of common ancestry and then turn around and use it as evidence for common ancestry. And they call this "science." (Jonathan Wells)
Chris Benge, the current Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, is my first cousin. (His mother and my mother are sisters.)
I'm no longer close to that part of the family, otherwise I'd try to contact him.
I notice that a certain person [Barb] from my city has been posting her nonsense on this blog. Perhaps you have already driven her off, back to her homophobic/fundamentalist christian blog.
She is a relentless blog-killer who spews her bible and homophobic crap wherever she can find an opening. I have struggled on my blog for more than a year fighting her bigoted and narrow comments.
She suffers from untreated OCD and is also bipolar, but laughs at any suggestion of receiving mental health counseling. It is truly pitiful watching her clog up excellent discussions such as the ones on this blog. She enjoys her 'mischief' very much.
Good luck with this problem. I see that you have filters for such purposes. My Blogger lacks them.
I do enjoy science discussions and may become a 'regular' around here if you permit me to have a say.
Simple Simon the cut/paste Lieman, can't think for yourself, so you cut and paste lies. That is because your premise is a lie. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is fiction. Deal with that elsewhere.
oh lord, I'm an Oklahoman and this is absolutely the single most ridiculous piece of legislation I've ever seen. In fact I do not even know how it was introduced. Well, of course, this was the first session of our legislature and I admit, we do not elect the brightest politicians, but come on, this is just ridiculous... I mean, besides the fact that the whole thing is warranted on a subjective piece of support, there's no way that this is going to fly, and I'm sure that the people in our superior court are much more sensible than this.
" Posted by: DaveL | March 5, 2009 8:07 PM
Hold on, Hold on...
So they oppose the University of Oklahoma inviting Dawkins to speak because he holds opinions at odds with the majority, but they encourage the University to engage in open and fair discussion on the theory of evolution?
Did they redact the clause that said "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"? "
That's absolutely golden mate. Well said!
mudrake @941
Welcome! You'll find that Barb is not the only troll we have around here.... she's a real doozy though isn't she! There's really not much filtering of the trolls until they prove to be so irritating that PZ will eventually cut them off (after a warning first).
mud_rake @ 941:
No permission is sought or required. You'll notice lots of occasional posters - (for me - that's because there are so many smarter, funnier, and sharper people already posting - my contribution is small and I try to only add when I can actually add)
We try hard to not feed the trolls, but it can be so much fun watching them dance!
If you're concerned about the etiquette - rummage around in the dungeon (link in the masthead). You'll find everything you need to know to ensure your experience here is enjoyable! (It is for me!)
Welcome.
I don’t know if anyone is still reading this thread and this comment will be as much off-topic as most of the others, but I feel that I must share an observation.
Has anyone else noticed exactly how much typical creationists/ID-proponents/evolution-deniers resemble spambots?
I’ve been writing on the internet for many years, and I’ve seen many marginally well-designed spambots leaving comments on various sites. For instance, on a writing site where I was a member, I noticed something peculiar about posts that had the word “sleep” in their title: they all had comments from the same person.
The comments were along the lines of "I used to have problems with going to sleep too, but then I found [some pharmaceutical] on [some site] and now I sleep well every night. I wish you luck with your sleeping problems in the future" or something like that; spam giving some semblance of being an actual comment.
Of course it was rarely that the articles were actually about any kind of sleeping disorder; in many cases they weren't about sleep at all, they just happened to have the word sleep in the title. But the spambot didn't know/care about that, and I think that the creationists follow the exact same pattern.
This blog post is about Dawkins and the Oklahoma state legislators, that’s all. Well, maybe it’s also about the extreme humor of a legislator saying that Dawkins shouldn’t speak because he says the wrong things, while simultaneously saying that there should be open and fair discussion.
Either way it is not in any way a post about evolution. It connects to evolution only very tangentially, but the issue is very, very clearly not the science of evolution. The issue is about democracy, freedom of speech, academic freedom and so on.
But even though any sane person who reads through the short blog post can realize this, there are a lot of comments from people who really haven’t realized it at all.
For instance, OFT comes in and gives as his first comment to this post “Evolution is pure faith, actually more than religious faith:” and goes on to give some reasons about why he thinks that evolution is faith.
Then there’s Null Hypothesis who comes in and says that he used to be an atheist and starts asking questions about the specific workings of evolution.
Then of course there is simon, who admittedly sticks to the subject at first (talking about how the text from the legislator is good, and something odd about penises), but after the first, very short, nonsensical on-topic ramblings, he keeps coming in with a massive cut-and-paste-attack against evolution. He posts long comments that are tired old chestnuts about Miller and Urey and stuff.
What has ANY of that to do with the topic of the post?
If PZ writes a post that has the basic premise “Evolution is a sound scientific theory”, well then it is very much on topic to point out flaws you see in the theory. You’ll probably be shot down, but at least it will be on topic.
But when PZ writes about legislation and Dawkins, it is off-topic to the extreme to just come in and leave a message that says nothing but “evolution isn’t science because [something]”, totally disjunctive from any ongoing conversation.
Yet this is the exact same pattern I see all the time. As soon as the word evolution is mentioned, they come storming in, say nothing at all about the subject at hand (and show no sign whatsoever that they even read what the subject is) and say something like “evolution is too improbable!!” or something like that.
And of course they leave messages that look exactly the same on other posts and articles that are marginally related to evolution. I don’t understand how they can think that this is proper decorum.
It’s like if I stumbled upon a discussion about the economy departments of Ford and Chrysler and start asking questions about how carburetors work. AND acting hurt and indignant if they refuse to answer.
Re the spambot observation: yes, I've absolutely noticed this. I've also occasionally found myself wondering whether some of these guys* would even pass the Turing test. It really is hard to tell with some of 'em. Some of 'em, I'm pretty sure you could simulate reasonably easily with software of some kind--and not necessarily even somethin' as relatively involved as a Markov generator, for that matter.
And no, I'm not being facetious. The way you can usually tell you're probably dealing with a human is when it really seems genuinely to demonstrate comprehension of something novel during the exchange. If it's a halfway complicated idea you just presented, and it rephrases it in its own words and actually gets it right, well, there aren't a lot of AI that can do that, far as I know. You tend to figure: human consciousness goin' on, there...
Some of the creobots--and the term arose for these reasons, more or less--don't regularly demonstrate this property. So you get to thinking: couldn't you do an Eliza like script or something that acted just like this? Hell, some of 'em, it wouldn't have to be much of a 'ware. Just run a PRNG a few times, use it to semi-randomly pick a standard rejoinder from the playbook (yer just sayin' that so you can devour kittens), splice it to a cut 'n paste from the Gishism file equally randomly picked/generated, and have the script fire out a post request. And that's a wrap. Who'd know?
*Or whatever they are: the whole point being it's kinda hard to tell.
In response to Barb in #145:
Yes. They reported that in 1979.
And Barb ignores the same article’s disclaimer that "most or all of the Creationists are devout fundamentalist Protestant Christians. Many of them testify that they adopted their creationist positions in childhood, long before their professional training, and have not wavered since." One of these scientists proudly declares, "I have always accepted the Bible as God’s unchanged and unchangeable word."
Another quoted scientist calls evolution "among the great Satanic lies." Impressive credentials aside, how can Barb trust the objectivity of anyone who believes his opponents to be literally in league with the devil?
(Paraphrased from "A Primer in Creationist Lies")
Also, in response to Barb's list of scientists in the same post, you can find a nice, thorough de(con)struction of her list right here.
Most of the scientists are either long dead, unpublished in the last 25 years or so, or professors at Christian/Creationist colleges.
Wow, I really enjoyed reading all of these posts. It has shown me that there are a lot of very intelligent people out there. As an atheist and secular humanist you make me proud. I have just recently became a atheist, after many years of swimming through the slime that is religion. Every day I spend away from the slime of religion, life and its pure enjoyment becomes more clear. Keep up the good work fellow atheists. I hope that someday I will be able to contribute to the battle with religious intolerance and bigotry. Peace.
Here in Oklahoma, you need three hours of "science" class to graduate high school. If you're really lucky, you get a teacher who has actually worked in their field. Usually not. The classes are ridiculously easy, and by the end of high school most people don't even know what an electron is.
Richard Dawkins doesn't want fair and open discussion. He has been invited to fair and open discussion, but he has turned it down. Ray Comfort has offered to pay him for fair and open discussion, but he turned it down. Dr. Joesph Mastropolao offered to pay him for fair and open discussion "The Life Science Prize Award of $10,000.00," but he turned it down. Dr. Russell Humphreys invited him to fair and open discussion, but he turned it down. The only thing that Dawkins wants to do is to talk and everyone else shut up. We "fundi's" as you call us, aren't going to shut up.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
I think you don't know the meaning of "fair and open discussion"
Hey everyone, here is Todd Thomsen's email address.
todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov
May I recommend a thorough spamming of disapproval? Here's a copy of the email I just forwarded to him.
Dear Mr Todd Thomsen,
I have just finished reading about your attempt to prevent Richard Dawkins from speaking at an event at the University of Oklahoma.
Fist of all I would like to express my unadulterated contempt for your lack of professionalism. It really is quite infantile and selfish to use your position in order to manipulate the world around you into a place that is ideal only for yourself and/or people who are extremely similar to yourself. If you were to stop only for a second and question what you are doing you would surely realize how unconstitutional your actions really are. Could you imagine how absurd it would be to hear of a man in your position attempting to ban a respected priest from performing a speech on creationism at an event celebrating creationism? Your apparent level of intolerance on this matter is nothing short of horrifying.
I am curious to know what kind of qualifications you have that allow you to feel justified enough to so actively oppose the theory of evolution. This theory is held to be absolutely true by the vast majority of the scientific world (and by the majority of the world in general for that matter). What is it that you know about the fallacy and dangers of evolution that the greatest scientific minds in the world do not know? I think that you will find after a brief (or preferably extensive) amount of research that opposition to the theory of evolution is not quite as wide spread as you seem to believe. Opposition to evolution is commonplace only in the middle east, the United States and the poorly educated.
As for your concern about the department of zoology. I think that you will find that they are "framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism" only because it is the theory of evolution with the largest supporting body of evidence. I would like to wager that the department of physics are probably just as dogmatic in their teaching of the theory of gravity.It would be nothing short of negligent to teach the theories of gravity or evolution as anything other than absolute facts. Both theories rest atop a mountain of evidence that no other competing theory could claim to share. In any case could you please explain to me why you believe that the divergent theories of evolution deserve such special treatment as to be taught in conjunction with natural selection? It is my understanding that it is commonplace and sensible to primarily focus on teaching theories that, as far as we can see with the available evidence, are the most likely to be correct. In what other circumstance do you feel it is necessary to teach the correct theory as well as other less likely or discredited theories with equal weighting?
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Luke Mangelsdorf.
So far the 'Ban Dawkins' legislation has not passed "introduced" in the legislature.
The only truly new ideas [the right] has come up with in the last twenty years are
--- Barbara Ehrenreich
Creation and Evolution Debate
Creationists, or those who postulate intelligent design instead of creation, love to say that they are dealing with science and not basing their arguments on the Bible. Let's see what happens when their own arguments are used to lead to positions that they may not be happy with.
Consider the following:
Evidence for Young World by Russell B. Humphries, PhD
"13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 180,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 8 billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the flood, if at all."
Commentary: Let us act as if the above questionable statement is true. The Australian aborigines had no farming therefore, according to the above, they must have been on earth for a relatively short period of time. Therefore they must have been a separate creation, different from that of Adam and Eve.
Let us consider the Native Americans. They had agriculture, but no wheels. Once the culture starts growing large amounts of crops it becomes necessary to transport the crops. Wheels are necessary for transportation of large loads. Obviously, if the Native Americans had no wheels they would have discovered agriculture only a short while before. Therefore it is unlikely that the Native Americans had been in existence for more than 1000 years before being found by Columbus. Therefore they also must have been a separate creation different from Adam and Eve and different from the creation of the Australian aborigines.
The Catholic Church was intent on burning all of the Native American writings. What in those writings could have been so upsetting? It must have been that those writings told of the separate creation of the Native Americans. The Catholic Church could not deal with such independent origin of another group.
I actually believe that mankind is very old and came out of Africa however it is interesting to try to follow the conclusions that are reached if one starts with a creationist premise. There will be those who argue that students should be able to hear all sides of the story and then choose for themselves. I wonder how many such people will teach their children that it is possible that they were at least three separate creations of humanity - one in the Middle East, one in the New World, and one in Australia.