"Darwin Day" Topic

Gunfreek using the term IDiot to refer to a group violates the Group Attack Rule.

"Can I insult some group I don't like?

No. Your gaming group might enjoy your jokes about (fill in the race, ethnic group, nationality, political party, or faction here), but this is an international forum. [GROUP ATTACK RULE]"

The idea behind the rules, as I understand it, is so we will treat all with respect regardless of whether they agree with us.

Rich

and yet it moves.

The investment in a Great Deluge covering the entire earth is unsupportable.

Much easier it would be (I did this as a child, in fact), to believe that a phrase in the KJV such as "all the world", or "under the whole heaven", or, "all the kingdoms of the earth", are relative to the subject.

It happened again. I find myself in the rather odd position in that I'm in total agreement with Doug. Surely when the ancient Egyptians wrote that the world flooded, they meant the Nile. When the world flooded in the stories of Gilgamesh, it was the Tigris and Euphrates over running their banks. Same with the Indus river for the ancient Dravidians. The "world" was a local phenomenon to illiterate peoples.

Ralph

The idea behind the rules, as I understand it, is so we will treat all with respect regardless of whether they agree with us.

Yes, but………..We have to treat everyone on this planet with respect whilst on the TMP? Or we treat all those on the TMP with respect whilst on the TMP, whether we agree with them or not? I would guess that Bill means the latter while you are trying to enforce the former.

Ralph

@Gunfreak

May I suggest "a proponent of IDiocy", instead of the "I" word. That way no personal attacks can be construed, but our feelings toward the intellectual shortcomings of the ID movement can be still expressed.

Ralph

And at heart, you have a basic false syllogism as well. "Existence is; existance is proof of a prime mover; therefore there is a prime mover that we can talk about without any evidence of what the F you mean."

There's nothing false about EXISTENCE, which requires a Cause, which is prompting a number of quantum theory "explanations" to what caused (came before) the BB: none of this is false or even syllogistic: it simply IS, with no explanation forthcoming as to why/how.

Where have I proposed that we talk about "my" NC? All my blathering on is upon one simple point only: the refusal of some others to admit that the NC is real. Existence is real, ergo the NC is also. You can't have this without THAT! As for discussing the NC, that cannot be done to ANY degree without introducing the personal (feely) bits: actually I am not interested in "going there" on this thread. If even one (say Ralph) had (however grudgingly) admitted way back there, that Existence requires a NC (of some sort!), I would have more than likely gone off somewhere else….

and yet it moves.

Awesome.

May I suggest "a proponent of IDiocy", instead of the "I" word. That way no personal attacks can be construed, but our feelings toward the intellectual shortcomings of the ID movement can be still expressed.

Ah! logical spin of syntax that I can admire.

I have always justified myself on the grounds that I address someone ACTING in a particular manner, rather than BEING: e.g. "You are behaving like an idiot" is not the same thing as saying "You are an idiot."

Gunny is veering over the line, back there, and I hope nobody complains. (the DawgHaus is not pretty….)

There's nothing false about EXISTENCE, which requires a Cause, ……….
All my blathering on is upon one simple point only: the refusal of some others to admit that the NC is real. Existence is real, ergo the NC is also. You can't have this without THAT!

Why does existence need a cause? Can it not be eternal and un-caused? Maybe you can have THIS without THAT.

And if there is a NC, why propose religious attributes to it? Isn't that like the ants in a campground, when seeing a campfire ignite, deciding to worship the spent matches?

Ralph

and yet it moves.

Awesome.

Shrug

Dude…

Well the Blue Fez has come down on the side of the Creationists. I for one will move on and not use the "I" word again. (Lets face it we had a good run for our money.) Unlike the the real world, there is right not to offended here.

I for one will now call Creationist and their ilk "Special People" in future discussions here. Why? Because these people need "special protection" because their beliefs which are so delicate when exposed to the hard cruel light of reason, evidence and therefore ridicule.

Doug is right, the Dawghouse is not pretty – but based on prior editorial policy I doubt if we'll see any of the "Special People" there. That is because "Special People" behave like trolls in making statements that raise our blood pressure and when we point out their errors they whine to teacher "Mr. Bill sir, these nasty Atheist Scientists are been mean to me." So we get punished and they smirk away and look like noble little bastions. Sorry it's just like retaking K-2 again.

Finally can the "Special People" object if we call them "Special?"

Church Lady liked that word…..

Finally can the "Special People" object if we call them "Special?"

I think they can. The term Special People is generally used in association with people who are mentally retarded. For example, there is the Special Olympics. Calling Creationists and IDers Special People or Special may be construed as calling them mentally retarded. I don't give a damn if you think that fits. Attacking people like that is not what TMP is all about. How about calling them Creationists or IDers. This is what mature people do. Remember, there is a rule against name calling.

That is because "Special People" behave like trolls in making statements that raise our blood pressure

Careful with the "troll" comments. Creationists and IDers are not responsible for your emotional reactions. You are. To try to blame others for your emotional outbursts is very dysfunctional. The point of the rules is to help people reign in their emotions.

when we point out their errors they whine to teacher "Mr. Bill sir, these nasty Atheist Scientists are been mean to me."

Come on 138, it was I, an evolutionist, who objected to the breaking of the rules. It was I who went to Bill for a clarification. All many of us ask is that you follow the rules of decency when expressing you opposition to people who disagree with you.

Rich

Why does existence need a cause? Can it not be eternal and un-caused? Maybe you can have THIS without THAT.

Hey, that's the closest you've come to agreeing with ME, believe it or not.

If Existence is uncaused (and that's how I see it), then it is defacto the NC itself: everything we see in this universe derives from it: everything manifesting empirically has its point of origin, when it came to be: just because we don't see a thing until it manifests in the universe doesn't mean it sprang into existence by itself.

And if there is a NC, why propose religious attributes to it?

I don't. But why is obvious: a need to understand in a world that is incomprehensible. As long as we are progressing toward understanding the world we are approaching the NC as well. Our "religion" ought to match the level of our knowledge….

As this is not a level playing field, I yield.
And yet it moves.

Thank you for the clarification Rich. I did not realise how the language had degenerated since I graduated University over 30 years ago. Orwell would be proud. Double Plus Good.

The description of a troll seems defensible based upon this definition: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Bringing in junk or non-science to a scientific discussion seems to fit the expression of a troll to me.

Since you have aligned yourself with the Forces of Reason in this kulturkampf. May I ask how YOU think we should combat the Creationists, especially the Young Earth types who have posted here.

Logic doesn't seem to work.
Facts don't seem to work.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" seems to be their response. We can pile up scientific study after scientific study and nothing gets through.

We can't attack the underlying mythic superstition since that is protect speech here.

So what is your answer?

I'm not going after Doug here rather some of the other 'gentleman' who have posted.

To get back on topic.

The biggest evidence for evolution is not the millions of fossils, the millions of genes proving that we are all related. It's not the anatomical similarities that animals like wolfs and bears have.
The fact that everything is perfectly matched up into grouping going back hundreds of millions of years

The single most convincing evidence for evolution is simply, with out evolution NOTHING in biology makes sanse, WITH evolution EVERYTHING makes sanse.

It's that simple, forget eugenics, abiogenegis, geological strada. With out evolution biologiy dosn't make sanse, with, it does make perfect sense.

If somenoe ask why this tree has this featrue or this animal has this type of tail ect. evolution explanes it.
With out evolution it would be chaos, up would be down, down would be west, and west would be backwards.

If Existence is uncaused (and that's how I see it), then it is defacto the NC itself:

Hmmm…….I'd say that if the universe is uncaused then there is no NC, defacto or not.

…..everything we see in this universe derives from it:….

Nothing derived at all……it was always there. The forms of matter only change, the matter always stays the same amount. That includes matter "lost" into black holes. It is still in our universe, but in a different space-time form that I do not understand. (Something to do with Hilbert Space).

BTW, this is all utter speculation on my part, is devoid of any factual basis and is, therefore, definitely NOT science.

I don't. But why is obvious: a need to understand in a world that is incomprehensible.

That is why I chose science for this route.

Ralph

E. K. Hornbeck: Aw, Henry! Why don't you wake up? Darwin was wrong. Man's still an ape. His creed's still a totem pole. When he first achieved the upright position, he took a look at the stars – thought the were something to eat. When he couldn't reach them, he decided they were groceries belonging to a bigger creature; that's how Jehovah was born.

Henry Drummond: I wish I had your worm's-eye view of history. It would certainly make things a lot easier.

E. K. Hornbeck: Oh ho, no! Not for you. No, you'd still be spending your time trying to make sense out of what is laughingly referred to as the "human race." Why don't you take your blinders off? Don't you know the future's already obsolete? You think man still has a noble destiny. Well I tell you he's already started on his backward march to the salt and stupecy from which he came.

Henry Drummond: What about men like Bert Cates?

E. K. Hornbeck: Cates? A monkey who tried to fly. Cates climbed to the top of the totem pole, but then he jumped. And there was nobody there to catch him. Not even you.

I alternate between thinking like Drummond and Hornbeck.

I'm just reading Prof. Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" he points out some of the best evidence of evolution can be found at the microbiological level.

One of the conditions that Darwin required for evolution to work is time. This means that an understanding of geology is also helpful. This was broadcast today on the BBC domestic service:

link

To summarise; three senior academic geologist discuss the formation of the British Isles. I am sure that this well appeal to my fellows in the Brights Movement.

Hey another Bright!

In Our Time is probably the greatest radio programme in the world.

Pete

That was it, we needed a word to reclaim ourselves, something uplifting, positive with none of the negativity associated with the words 'agnostic' or worse yet atheist. Bright is the thinking persons 'gay'. We do not have to be negative to our opponents. No one can be sent to the Dawghouse for describing their scientific stance as the being that of the Brights. We even have a support group:

the-brights.net

The other side can not possibly object if the Brights embrace the name.

Pete I will agree with you; IOT is radio at its best; check out the archives:

link

There is something for everyone, I even enjoy the relious section.

This one fits nicely into the geology thread:

link

The problem with "Bright" is that it sounds holier-than-thou, snooty, patronizing and elitist.

"We're bright, you're dim."

Makes me cringe.

Not what I want people to think about skeptics/atheists/humanists/free-thinkers (all terms I would use for myself).

Oh noes! Dissention in the evil secular ranks! This will certainly lead to our destruction!

Eight, sir; seven sir;
Six, sir; five, sir;
Four, sir; three, sir;
Two, sir; one!
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension,
And dissension have begun.

Pete

You don't have to say "We're Bright, you're dim", just leave it at "We're Brights." If they feel dim, not my problem.

Sorry I came from a culture where being an elitist is perfectly acceptable. It is also a great deal more secular.

Actually you are not alone a number of atheists don't care for the term either. Christopher Hitchens for one is very down on the term.

My time in the Dawghouse did make me think. On consideration there is a good way to deal with interruptions here from the Creationists and ID types. Best answer is to ignore them. If they post here fine. BUT we can take the high ground of carrying on our conversation without answering their posts. Why waist bandwidth giving evidence that they will ignore away. We know the sources they quote; Ray "Banana Man" Comfort, Ken Ham and his "Museum", Michael Behe. Nothing to add to a science discussion from any of those sources. They will ignore our posts and evidence. So why not carry on anyway.

Anyone else here finished "The Greatest Show on Earth?"

Sorry I came from a culture where being an elitist is perfectly acceptable.

Funny you should mention that. This is neither here nor there, and has nothing to do with the discussion. I just re-read one of my favorite detective novels, it's called "Nothing Burns in Hell" by Norman Spinrad (the sci-fi author). There's a scene where the PI, a very well read, intelligent guy who uses a huge vocabulary, is looking at a surrealist painting in a rich socialite's house. He describes to her what the painting makes him feel, which is very freudian and detailed. He then goes on to say that he actually prefers the realism of Frederick Remington's western art. The elderly socialite says in response, "bless your fundamentally middle-class sensibilities."

I feel the same way about myself, pretty much. I think of myself as reasonably intelligent, who enjoys learning and doesn't feel bad about being smart or the need to dumb myself down. But at heart I'm still a middle-class small-town midwesterner.

At the same time, I'm almost through the Aubrey-Maturin series, and while reading that, the stratification of the various British social levels seem completely reasonable.

Actually you are not alone a number of atheists don't care for the term either. Christopher Hitchens for one is very down on the term.

Yeah, I was very active on the JREF forums when the whole Brights thing started to pick up steam. There were some very heated debates about the term. I was more into the "Out Campaign" with the big "A" symbol.

…..everything we see in this universe derives from it:….

Nothing derived at all……it was always there. The forms of matter only change, the matter always stays the same amount.

My only "scientific" response is "we'll just have to wait and see".

The observance of appearing matter combined with black holes; the theory that everything furthest away from the BB is moving so fast it disappears from the observable universe, etc., tend to point to something other than "the matter always stays the same amount".

But I agree (my opinion only): in all practicality there is only Existence, uncaused and always the same "amount" for lack of a better term: what Existence comes up with, however, is infinitely increasing….

Why waist bandwidth …

That one made me smile, especially slipping from a Bright….

Why waist bandwidth giving evidence that they will ignore away. We know the sources they quote; Ray "Banana Man" Comfort, Ken Ham and his "Museum", Michael Behe. Nothing to add to a science discussion from any of those sources.

Actually the poster boy for the ID movement, Dr Mike Behe of Lehigh University, has come out and stated that he believes in "evolution from common descent". Whew! (I can't wait to see how TJ reconciles with that.) Behe doesn't believe that Natural Selection provides the best explanation for how evolution works and sees the hand of the Divinity working through "irreducible complexity".

link

(It's telling that he needs an official disclaimer. Also notice that his only peer reviewed publication is on a topic with nothing to do with ID or Irreducible Complexity.)

Ralph

PS The use of the term ID is fully supported by the 5th Edition IngSoc Dictionary. Doubleplusgood!

Isn't "evolution from common descent" just another way of saying "micro-evolution", a term used by Creationists to show some acknowledgment of change over time, as opposed to the all encompassing "macro evolution" that is accepted by the Brights but rejected by the other side.

By the way, loved his illustration, take away a couple of parts and you have a tie-clip.

As to the disclaimer RAOFLMA – that Science Department must be embarrassed. Maybe if he worked for Liberty "University" he wouldn't need a disclaimer there. He could take his students to the Creation "Museum" without embarrassment.

@Doug

The observance of appearing matter combined with black holes; the theory that everything furthest away from the BB is moving so fast it disappears from the observable universe, etc., tend to point to something other than "the matter always stays the same amount".

Except that is not what is observed, Doug. The farther out you look, the farther back in time you go. The farthest the Hubble can see is a newborn baby galaxy, called A1689-zD1, whose stars formed only 700 million years after the BB. Past that we would see nothing as the early universe was dark.

@138

Isn't "evolution from common descent" just another way of saying "micro-evolution"

I think it means all living things evolved from a common ancestor, doesn't it? That would be "macro", I believe.

Ralph

Irreducible Complexity 101

Behe says, from the link:

I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems "irreducibly complex."

This is the one trick that the one-trick-pony knows.

Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete.

Wrong assumption. Partially working systems have some benefit too, sometimes in totally different ways. Remember Dr. Dawkins answer to Paley's question, "What use is half an eye"? Behe was "taught" this lesson at the Dover trial when Dr. Ken Miller showed him that Behe's beloved irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum was just an altered, mutated form of the bacterial Type three secretory system (TTSS), a toxin secretion system. Unlike Intelligent Design, mother nature builds new parts from working older parts. Nature jury rigs. Two of the scientists that worked on this were Dr. DeRosiers of Brandies and Dr. Blocker from Oxford.

(An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured on this page, which needs all its parts to work.)

138 Squadron alludes to Kenneth Millers wonderful attack on Behe's stupid assertion. Miller removes the holding bar and the catch from the mousetrap and now wears the mousetrap as a tie clip. He therefore, shows how evolution works, albeit in reverse. In "Only a Theory", Miller remembers how a classmate made a powerful spitball catapult, also out of a broken mousetrap.

Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion.

Maybe it would be better for Dr. Behe to stay out of the Discovery Institute and read some of the papers published by his colleagues.

How about:
1) Human clotting mechanism solved by Dr. Russel Doolittle
2) Plasmodium (malaria)chloroquinone resistance solved by Dr Nicholas Matzke
3) Human immune cascade solved by Dr. Susumu Tonegawa
4) The development of the genes for antibody creation solved by (Nobel prize winner) Dr. David Baltimore.

I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent.

My aren't we "special". I wonder who the "agent" is?

The proposal of intelligent design has proven to be extremely controversial, both in the scientific community (for example, see Brumfel, G. 2005. Nature434:1062‑1065) and in the general news media.

Ya think?

My current work involves: 1) educating various groups to overcome mistaken ideas of what exactly intelligent design entails, so that they can make informed judgments on whether they think it is a plausible hypothesis; and 2) trying to establish a reasoned way to determine a rough dividing line between design and non-design in biochemical systems.

So your idea won't float in the peer reviewed world of scientific publications (this theory of irreducible complexity is currently unpublished and I dare say unpublishable) so you have to go and flog it in non-conventional, un-scientific ways. Is that what a real scientist does?

Ralph

Ralph,

If Behe holds 'evolution from common descents' that would imply that his position is with the biological mainstream – apes and humans having a common, remote ancestor for example. BUT we know that his writings are linked in with some strange unexplained supernatural element putting into the same camp as the astrologers.

I'm confused by this.

Elliott

You and me both, Elliott. Things that are wrong tend not to make sense.

One of the big dangers to IDiocy is that it actually undermines and represses real science. Why look for a difficult cause to an important problem? Instead of doing the difficult research required scientists could just give up and state, "Ahh…..here is where the hand of the Creator intervened".

Case closed. Science stymied. Nothing learned

Ralph

The farther out you look, the farther back in time you go. The farthest the Hubble can see is a newborn baby galaxy, called A1689-zD1, whose stars formed only 700 million years after the BB. Past that we would see nothing as the early universe was dark.

link Except for "places" where that's apparently not true: everything in the universe apparently originating from the same singularity when space-time got its start, I mean….

Well looks like the creationst are poking their head out over in the blue fez, I've tried to explane basic 5th grade level info about science, but they have their minde set and disturst science. so I won't talk to them anymore.

Mabye somebody els have better luck or more patsions.

PS. Humans and apes don't have a commen ancestor, we still are apes. but humans and OTHER apes have a commen ancestor

One of the big dangers to IDiocy is that it actually undermines and represses real science. Why look for a difficult cause to an important problem? Instead of doing the difficult research required scientists could just give up and state, "Ahh…..here is where the hand of the Creator intervened".

Humanity has progressed far beyond the point where science can be dismembered by superstition. Your fears are groundless. If you REALLY believe what you said here can happen, then you tacitly agree that the rising generation of bright kids are actually STUPID: that they would rather not ask questions or look at physical evidence: they would rather just BELIEVE any old hooey fed to them. If that winds up being the predominant mindset then knowledge is doomed anyway: because young minds that don't comprehend religion OR science will ignore both….

Well looks like the creationst are poking their head out over in the blue fez

I looked. Its weird in that its a whole fez thread that doesnt mention the current US president. Apart from that business as usual.

Humanity has progressed far beyond the point where science can be dismembered by superstition.

Vaccinations.
I could mention others, but the stronger examples will bring bad spelling from Kyoto Blue.

And the very next time we have a pandemic, the Creationists will be in line with everybody else clammoring for a vaccination. It will be too late, because the innoculations don't work after the fact of a pandemic. Billions will die, removing the bulk of stubborn, superstitious elements from the gene pool. And we can continue on with plenty of resources, an unthreatened climate, and science making everything paradisiacal. What's your worry?…

I don't [propose religious attributes for the NC]. But why is obvious: a need to understand in a world that is incomprehensible.

That is why I chose science for this route.

Science explores immediate answers to observable phenomena. If you only do science in your mind then you are limiting your imagination. I don't believe that you do this. But I also see from what you've said in the past, that you don't find it profitable to discuss unscientific things. Entertaining, perhaps, but of no practical value. (Rocky has expressed this as his approach too; yet he is not an unbeliever.)

It seems to me that anyone who would claim that the universe (matter in total) has always existed, yet would assert that the attributes of life deriving from the universe are not PART OF the universe, is proposing some kind of closed environment in which attributes can arise out of nothing to do with them: back to what I said before: this smacks of the ultimate perpetual motion "machine" (defying science) winding up with more than it "started" out with.

And choosing to believe in that seems like a deliberate limiting of the biggest concept for the infinite. Anytime you find yourself settling for a smaller concept, then you can be sure that your failure to believe is actually a failure to accept your own imagination. Your imagination cannot be bigger than infinite Existence in the first place!

Refusal/failure to believe has its roots in personal issues, not in a failure of imagination.

As I have said also before: refusal/failure to believe is either out of a desire to not have a higher "authority" to answer to (you will find immoral and dishonest individuals in this category): or a fear of disappointment -- "I believed and found out that I was mistaken." Nobody wants that to happen -- and that explains the adamant resistance of IDers/Creationists to godless science: the other approach to staving off disappointment is, of course, to reject belief in the first place….

Hi

doug, it is easier for me to unlimit my imagineation by creating a scenario involving great sex with Maurina Baccarin or Musetta Vander.

But, sadly, just not limiting my imagination doesn't leave me with a date tonight.

Having a fantasy with even less plausible evidence about NC is even more frustrating!

rocky

That is certainly a false syllogism: I am imagining having sex with Morena but nothing ever happens; my imagination never results in reality; ergo imagining a NC isn't real….

Billions will die, removing the bulk of stubborn, superstitious elements from the gene pool.

Has it not occurred to you perhaps I don't want billions dead in a painfull and premature way. Plus all those people who hear there is a 'controvosy' over vaccines will be resistant to having vaccinations believing they are actually protecting their children's health because "equal treatment" fails to discriminate on the basis of stupidity, thus they will think the anti crowd have a reasonable argument.

It's spelled kyoteblue……