Against Ben Stein's wishes, lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island
Marilyn Terrell says: "Lizards evolve 'overnight' on Croatian island.
LinkItalian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.
In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.
Wow, that ol' Intelligent Designer sure keeps hisself busy.
And how can we be sure this is actually "evolution", and not, say, a change of diet?
What do you mean by evolution?
Micro evolution, which is change within the species or aka adaptability. Like already having guts, a head and the knowledge of how to bite. No new information just variations with the information already there. This is viewed all the time and is a sign of good design. Like heat and air conditioning in my car I am prepared to adjust to where I am.
While macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. This has never been seen and belongs in the faith not science category.
I agree with Acejohnny. If you eat enough Taco Bell I guarantee you will develop the features listed above.
#3: That's not evidence. It's mental illness.
So wait a minute, these lizards have learned how to make air conditioners?
#3: I challenge you to tell me what keeps microevolution from piling up and becoming macroevolution. Where would you draw the line between these two categories of evolutionary change? Evolutionary biologists realize there is no dividing line. As the saying goes, believing in microevolution but not macroevolution is like believing in inches but not miles.
Evidence: What do you mean by evolution?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/Guysmiley777/Evolution2.jpg
"It's Just a Completely Pre-Existing Alimentary Canal with Minor Changes," ISBN 83673463-1034.
According to the article the lizards' digestive system formed new structures to allow it to better digest plants. That seems more substantial than just saying they changed their diet as alluded to above. They are able to have a different diet because of the change.
Unsurprisingly, #3's definitions are sufficiently full of vague terms that they can be used to deny evolution no matter what evidence is presented.
And because they've made a deep commitment to becoming a better them.
Big frown on the unnecessary Ben Stein slam. :(
No silly rabbit they can't make air conditioners because they are and have always been lizards.
See Ben Stein's movie and hear Richard Dawkins say aliens put us here. Someone should tell him that that is a form of intelligent design.
This is not evolution. This is adaptation.
When you show me an animal that has transitioned from one species to another, then we can talk about evolution. Until then, evolution is just as much a religion as any other.
#2:
"Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.
"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."
This doesn't sound like changes attributed to just eating different food over the course of a single lifespan...
That said, the researcher noted that they still hadn't done the genetic testing to confirm that the changes were genetic.
Big smile on the unnecessary Ben Stein slam. :D
@3-
"This has never been seen" Except in the fossil record. But then again, JHVH could have just put those there to trick us, because He has been known to be a big fan of the psych out. You can interpret the fossil record any way you want, but I'm going to side with the scientists who've devoted their lives to studying it, rather than the theologians who've devoted their lives to ignoring it.
In regard to "new information," see one of those scientists' analysis of the "information" problem. Also, see Dawkins' explanation of how evolution can increase complexity (going from skin to a functioning eye).
James: Big frown on the unnecessary Ben Stein slam. :(
After being involved with the travesty that is Expelled, I don't think there is such a thing as an unnecessary slam on Ben Stein.
I would say true evolution would be the change of one species into another species. Dog to a cat.
"While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not by design"
Ha ha! I get it.
Personally, I see the whole basis of the evolution 'problem' to have nothing to do with the science at all. There's simply too much to lose, biblically if the Garden of Eden is a Creation Myth and not hard fact. If that tale is in fact an allegory, then Original Sin is out the window!
Original Sin is the ultimate marketing tool; you can walk up to a pillar of virtue and tell him he's a sinner because of Eve. Original Sin means EVERYONE needs your product! Original Sin is why Jesus' 'sacrifice' means anything at all! It's the core of Catholic guilt and evangelical recruiting, and it's the single reason why so many people aren't cool with "Well, what if God just created evolution?" If that were true, it'd still be doubtful there was ever an Eden, an apple, or a serpent.
And of course, without the Eden myth, you lose the primary Christian justification for oppressing women! If Eve wasn't made from Man, then she's not 'woman,' literally 'of man.' Man may have come from a woman, just like the 3.3 billion other men on this earth. And since there may not have been an Eve to eat the apple, it wasn't a woman that made the virtuous man 'fall.' No more biblical justification to treat women badly, keep them from the priesthood, etc. etc.
Darwin doesn't matter for beans compared to the Christian marketing and control schemes that stand to be lost.
Poster Evidence is 100% wrong. If a change in the population is due to a changing gene pool, that's evolution. And unless he wants to present a definition of "information" and then calculate the amount of information present in the ten ancestors and then compare it to the present population's genes, his "no new information" line of argument is at best an unsupported assertion and at worst a credulous repetition of a long-debunked creationist claim.
As for macro-evolution, we have several examples of directly-observed speciation. More to the point, we have a great deal of evidence for prior speciation from sources such as the fossil record or our own chromosomes. The notion that macro-evolution is taken on faith not only isn't true, but it's blatant projection.
"The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown"
and
"The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses"
They were probably able to interbreed with one or more of the native species, and wound up getting some new traits that had already evolved on the island long ago. The territorial tendencies in the wall lizards probably evolved due to competition for food in Italy, and the native lizards couldn't cope. Only their gut features live on.... I mean 30 generations to get wholly new features de novo? Those lizards smell fishy to me.
The lizards are originally from Italy, right across the Adriatic. It's what, 100 miles? Maybe 200? The native island lizards and the wall lizards are very likely to have been siblings, phylogenetically speaking.
Evolution *is* adaptation. Evolution is *not* a Flying Spaghetti Monster pushing his hand down from inside a cloud, pointing, and saying, "ZOT!!!"
Big smile on the completely necessary Ben Stein bitchslap! :)
Tom Cruise's opinion of this thread:
"Before I was a Scientologist, I never agreed with BoingBoing. And when I started studying the history of BoingBoing, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in BoingBoing."
\Hail Xenu!
The fossil record shows no transitional forms Darwin himself said this would disprove his theory.
Developing a muscle is called exercise #16.
Well to be fair to Ben Stein, it is not the bit about things changing over time that really gets him all boiled up inside. It is more the bit that things probably started on this world from things randomly coming together, rather than that God thing (or aliens for that matter) seeding life.
#15, Ericthegeek,
"This is not evolution. This is adaptation."
Let me just probe to find out exactly which part you have trouble with:
1) Do you think that the changes to the lizards' digestive system could be passed on to the lizards' offspring? (In this case, they haven't conformed that, but I'm just asking if you think it's possible)
2) Do you think that other adaptations could be passed to the lizards' offspring?
3) Do you think that, on the assumption (see 1) that the changes to the lizard's digestive system were genetic, there could also eventually be changes to the lizards' reproductive organs?
4) Do you think that the changes in 3) could ever be enough to prevent the lizards from mating with another breed of lizard?
5) Do you agree that one basic definition of "different species" is the inability to breed with members of the other group?
@15 - "show me an animal that has transitioned from one species to another"
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
@20 - Then you don't understand how evolution works. How about this guy turning into dogs and cats?
Contrary to what some posters here believe, speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild. More details at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html .
All known mechanisms of evolution work on time frames longer than the human lifespan, so personally witnessing a major change in your lifetime is extremely unlikely. However, by examining the fossil record we can observe that such changes have occurred in the past, as predicted by evolution.
#20: Just because that's what you'd say "true evolution" is doesn't make it so.
Well to be fair to Ben Stein, it is not the bit about things changing over time that really gets him all boiled up inside. It is more the bit that things probably started on this world from things randomly coming together, rather than that God thing (or aliens for that matter) seeding life.
The theory of evolution makes absolutely no claim to how life started. Zero. Nada. None. It's the theory of evolution not the theory of biogenesis.
So, no, I'd rather not "be fair" to BS.
"While macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. This has never been seen and belongs in the faith not science category."
"The fossil record shows no transitional forms Darwin himself said this would disprove his theory."
another nickel... one more...
THERE!
I now have a million dollars in nickels. Thanks!
@#17: Touche.
@#19: I haven't seen the movie yet, but I really want to. The ads make it seem like it's just a documentary about teachers getting fired for religious beliefs.. but the internet reaction is that it's some insane rant preaching creationism. I wanna see who's right.
..but yeah, this could have been a really nifty post about some super sweet science find. but that headline just reads "Ben Stein is a crazy old man and you are a fool for believing in a higher power; Also: Lizards."
So: frown. :(
Meh. That's nothing. You should see the mutations of the Italian wall lizards living in the NYC sewers!
It doesn't say "You are a fool for believing in a higher power." You came up with that one on your own.
However, I'm not one to question your beliefs!
#27
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
@Evidence and others,
Your saying that only demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution. It's just as silly as saying that people came from monkeys... Rather, evolution shows us that dogs and cats (or people and monkeys for that matter) had a common ancestor. A dog will never become a cat. However, given enough time, a change of environment and maybe some gamma radiation - it's ancestors will become something other then a dog.
Yes everyone, it takes a very long time for a complex organism to evolve. If you don't trust the fossil record, why not instead look at simpler organisms. Viruses and bacteria are readily evolving.
@27-
"The fossil record shows no transitional forms"
Well, actually it does, but that's beside the point.
If I showed you a picture of myself at 6, and then a picture of myself at 9, would you assume that they were pictures of two distinct individuals, because you never saw the pictures of me at 7 and 8? If I showed you the pictures of me at 7 and 8, would you assume you were looking at 4 different individuals, because you don't see pictures from 6.5, 7.5, and 8.5?
@Comstock: sexual reproduction, obviously :-)
By mixing up the genes, it keeps microevolution elastic, able to respond to short-term changes then spring back to the long-term-viable norm. With such a small population, it doesn't really work, so macroevolution gets a chance. Usually, of course, it heads straight down the drain; but it doesn't have to work often.
Here is my question, and it mostly shows a position of ignorance, I am not a biologist.
How does a major enugh mutation to be considered evolution not leave the animal sterile like a mule? I seem to remember this mule-ness was part of genetic error control. I also seem to remember all mutations being recessive, where do dominant traits come from then?
Creation-evolution arguments aside, it's pretty amazing stuff and i'm hoping they "devolve" to dino size.
All hail wall crawling lizard lords!
The fossil record shows us that a lot of animals died in a flood and are buried around the world.
Examine the evidence prepare yourself for your judgement coming.
He promised before and left evidence everywhere(Noah's flood-fossils-oil...), it is coming again and you know it.
Thats why you love science that changes what it knows from year to year.
Repent and cry out for Jesus to save you because the flying spaghetti monsters noodly appendage is to short to save you.
Examine yourself with the ten commandments.
Ever lied? Stolen? Coveted? Blasphemed God?
If so you need to repent and trust Jesus today.
I, for one, welcome our rapidly evolving lizard masters.
James: A belief in a higher power is much different from a belief in creationism. There are millions of thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable people who are religious and still readily accept that all the evidence points to evolution.
Being a creationist is not an act of faith. It is an active denial of the evidence all around you, and an active refusal to engage yourself with knowledge and exploration of the world God made (for the sake of argument).
Suggesting that God placed evidence of an ongoing and ancient process all around us while reassuring us it’s all meaningless next to some folktales is nothing short of madness. It’s akin to jumping off a bridge because the Bible doesn’t say anything about gravity.
Actually, Evidence, God created the rainbow as a promise that a Great Flood would never come again. Genesis 9:13, pally.
@44-
Another creationist shows his/her true colors. You guys can have Heaven all to yourself if you just leave Earth to the rest of us heathens.
#40 G.park It was still you, you didn't evolve you aged.
We had a common ancestor? Man and apes?
I believe we had a common ancestor = Adam not an ape.
Believing we had an common ancestor means you belive well all came from a rock that was rained on for millions of years.
More faith than I have.
A:
Yes, it's evolution.
B:
Yes, the slam on Ben Stein was entirely necessary. People learn to censure themselves through shame or guilt. Ben Stein's sense of guilt was replaced before he entered the service of Nixon. he also has no shame. The final function is to warn others - which BoingBoing is very good at doing.
C:
There is no difference between macro-evolution, micro-evolution, and just plain old evolution. Anyone who makes noise about "no new information", "no new traits", "there has to be a transition to a new species - cat to dog" "evolution is a religion", are lying, outright.
D:
#27! Yes, Darwin did say that a lack of transitional fossils would disprove his theory! Right after that he says, in essence: "So thank goodness we have this mountain of transitional fossils in the record!"
Either you're a liar, intentionally trying to mislead readers as to what evolution is and the evidence for it - or you are completely ignorant of the subject and lack qualification to discuss it.
True evolution would be if these lizards started selling insurance...
And #44 lies once again, and demonstrates that he is in fact Lying for Jesus™.
"Repent and cry out for Jesus to save you because the flying spaghetti monsters noodly appendage is to short to save you."
Okay, now I'm wodering if this Evidence person simply has an ironic sense of humour which is not easily detected in text form.
This is a testament to the failure of high school science teachers throughout the English speaking world. Reproducible advantageous mutation is happening every minute of every day. If you don't think that evolution transpires in a brief time frame, let me introduce you to my friends, the micro-organisms. Any life form that reproduces rapidly has the potential to evolve rapidly. A major change in living conditions could give an advantage to a recessive trait and wipe out a dominant one in a couple of generations.
What's with all the creationist ma-roons here today?
You're woefully misinformed if you think:
- "Darwinism" is the same as evolution.
- that evolution takes any position on abiogenesis.
- that "species" is anything but a mental box we put things in that say little about the nature of critters. (Look up "ring species" for a pathological case.)
- that there are any compelling alternatives to what evolution explains.
- that there are any scientific alternatives to what evolution explains.
- that your anti-evolution propaganda machine is telling you the truth, re: transitional fossils, macroevolution, the nature of science, or what repsected scientists say about any of those.
- that creationism has done anything but Flunked its scientific tests. (It's not expulsion if you fail out.)
The only unfortunate thing about this headline is that it is kookbait. Kooks!
@rebdav,
A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse Although donkey's and horses have a common ancestor, they have each evolved along different paths to the point that they now have a different number of chromosomes. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.
This means that they are still genetically similar enough to reproduce, but different enough that (for the most part) the offspring are sterile. Mules are a type of F-1 hybrid.
Eventually, the lizards on this island may evolve to the point where they can no longer breed with the lizards from the other island. However, they can still mate with each other. If a genetic mutation occurred that did not allow a lizard to mate there would be no way to pass on that genetic information...
Homo erectus to homo sapiens; micro or macro?
"Evidence" - the poster - is using what is known as a "strawman" of evolution - a strawman built by Ken Ham, propagated through his organisations: ICR, and Answers in Genesis.
His statements demonstrate that he does not know what he is talking about. Nothing he has said about evolution up to this point has been true or accurate.
Post #44 demonstrates that he is intentionally lying to further his religion.
This is known as Lying for Jesus ™.
To those of you in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere:
This is what we, in America, have to put up with. It is what our politicians believe and practice. It is what blocks our funding for actual science. It is what cripples children's education.
And it is spreading, to Turkey, to Europe, to Australia, and beyond.
#44, how does intelligent design in any way involve Jesus? Isn't he just a son of your God? He wasn't there when this all took place, leave him out of this.
let's exile all the bible scientists and bible doctors to an island somewhere. In a few generations, the problem will be gone.
Re: "New information". I imagine this means the formation of additional chromosomes. This happens all the time. It is called "aneuploidy".
@Evidence
Your definition of "evolution" is different from that used the biological sciences.
@Rebdav
This article directly addresses your question about mules and has some good basic info about one class of major mutational event, chromosome number changes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
@48-
"Believing we had an common ancestor means you belive[sic] well[sic] all came from a rock that was rained on for millions of years."
Wrong again.
1.) Evolution does not attempt to explain where life came from, only how it came to be how it is. I haven't heard the "rock rained" on theory, but I think it's a lot less plausible than others.
2.) How is that any more of a stretch than believing in a creator-less creator who existed before things existed?
3.) WTF do you care? If you're convinced that your Abrahamic Hygiene Deity will come back to eternally damn us sinners any day now why bother convincing us? More Heaven for you and your 72 virgins. Wait... am I getting mixed up again? Of course. 72 virgins is crazzzzzyyyyy not sane and rational like your afterlife.
@GHurley, #61
The "new information" thing is a canard of the Intelligent Design movement. It is meaningless because they refuse to define "information". It's a semantic device used to confuse and intimidate people into questioning evolution.
Human intelligence hasn't evolved in 25,000 years either. That's why we're all squatting in our furs scratching these messages in the sand.
Nothing ever changes unless some powerful wizard waves a big stick.
@g.park
Actually, there is some evidence that DNA came into being supported by crystal formation.
@ #42:
In the common vernacular, a "mutation" is some freaky thing that happens because of radiation or something.
Mutations happen all the time - that's one of the things that contributes to variation in populations. For example, the adult human's ability to digest lactose is the result of a mutation: specifically, a mutation that allows for the continued production of lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose. People in dairy-farming cultures who had this mutation were able to digest a high-calorie, readily available food source. This gave them a better chance at surviving and reproducing. When they did reproduce, they passed that lactose mutation along to their kids. Over time, that mutation became common because it helped people survive. Lactose intolerance is common among people whose ancestors never raised dairy animals, because if that mutation happened at all, there was no selective pressure keeping it around.
Evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations over long periods of time. As mutations occur and natural selection acts on them (i.e. individuals who are best suited to their environments will reproduce better), populations will change. That's evolution. Eventually, the population might change so much that we call it a different species compared to its ancestors. That's speciation.
As for the dominant/recessive thing - no, mutations are not all recessive. Otherwise we would have no dominant traits, since all of our physical features are essentially the product of mutation and natural selection.
Takuan:
Nnno.
First: We aren't inhumane fascists. We don't censor because we let idiots demonstrate their idiocy in public and then we turn to our children and say "And that's why we aren't X". Everyone needs examples of what not to do, and people have - hard as it may be to believe - engaged their brains and realised they were caught in a cult / scam / bullshit and have walked away from it.
Second: Even if we /were/ inhumane fascists, this "problem" has been bred in to the European population and European society for 1500 years at least - since the Roman and thus Catholic conquest of Europe - if not longer. Who knows how long it will take to breed out gullibility and pigheaded willingness to Lie For Jesus™?
That looks like the end of round one. By the end of the working day, I would expect many more Evidencers to pop up. It ain't over yet.
#14 Evidence:
AHHH HA HA Ha hah aha ahaha ha..
@ everything else Evidence has posted:
AHHHHHH HA HA AH AH HA Ha HA HA Ha ha h ah ahaha ah haaaa
Seriously, Takuan, is that really you? Hilarious!
You do know Teresa said not to sign up more than one account don't you..? Even for shits and grins..
Classic Takuan. Brilliant.
#44 "Evidence"....thanks for giving me the biggest laugh of the day. Hope you are joking. You are .......aren't you? Please say you are....
(By the way, Dawkins did NOT say in Expelled that we came from aliens. When pressed by a very annoying Stein for a hypothesis as to where life came from (which evolution does not even try to address) Dawkin's mentioned panspermia under duress as one of the hypothesis that exists. He himself does not believe that's the case.)
Evidence, although I don't agree with you, I find your argument that Jesus was actually a woman who posed as a man an an attempt to expose the hypocrisy of Judeo-Roman society quite fascinating. Do please keep up with the interesting and informative posts.
Even the Pope believes in evolution.
Mechphisto:
In fact, Stein was not the one doing the interviewing. Have you seen the movie - ? Did they dub in Stein's voice asking questions over the actual interviewers?
If that is the case, I'd like to know if Mr. Stein ... "editorialised" the questions. /Smoooothed/ them, y'know. Fudged. Mislead. Little white lies. Invalidated his journalistic credibility (as if he ever had any).
why does everyone always assume I am not an inhumane fascist?
Takuan - Touche'. Perhaps you are.
Wow, that's cool about the lizards.
Just saying.
Too much fighting here, not enough lizards.
#69 -- but will these new Evidences show signs of evolving?
Andygates: Yeahp. I bet those lizards hurt like the dickens when they bite yer fingertip.
#79
Well, they say you should try to live what you believe...
It was probably unessecarially provocative of Mark to bring Ben Stein into this one.
I saw a lizard once. It was sleeping.
#57 Homo erectus to homo sapiens; micro or macro? Answer Fiction, a drawing is not evidence.
#59 He is God. Col 1:16 For by Him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
#63 You are confusing Christianity with Islam. I only say something because I don't want any of you to go to hell.
#72 and others. I am not joking. I knew one of you would run to the spaghetti monster and start slacking while riding your pink unicorn so I tried to cut you off at the pass, so to speak.
Enough about ben fucking stein. I havent seen the crapsterpiece yet, but all I can think of, every time BB drops his name, is that I have a FOAF who is blacklisted by the arrogant asses in the scientific community, a blacklist that is not based on fact but on the beliefs of those in that community.
Now I don't think any of you posters are understanding the term 'species' correctly; 'species' is an artificial labeling of critters by mankind, and the labeling itself is mutable. One species can change into another as some scientist sees what he believes is proof that this organism isn't really all that different from this other organism as a previous scientist believed.
Signed,
a creative evolutionist
Some times you just have to put on the armor of Christ and go to battle against science.
God made drug resistant virii. Duh.
#53: Science teachers around the world seem to be doing just fine. It's the ones in the US (who evidently must have taught EVIDENCE) that are failing.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
-j
Evidence is a boring troll
Would it be possible to introduce Ben Stein to a small island far away from the rest of us? We could go check on him in 30 years to see if HE'S changed.
#73 Words have meaning. I use words with definitions you would find in Webster's dictionary. I don't pour new meaning into them as you apparently are.
#74 Does the pope believe the Bible? I have never heard him preach it and rarely quotes it.
You guys are fleshing out the movie "Expelled" no debate just shut up, be quite, you unlearned flunky. What name have I called you? What are you all so afraid of? Truth?
"a drawing is not evidence."
By that same argument, I must conclude that the person known as "Evidence" does not exist, since words on a screen are not evidence.
My psycholoist has instructed me not to argue with noexistent people, and so my comments on this thread will only pertain to lizards from now on.
So this "evidence" person just automatically shows up to post on BB solely in an evolution story?
When one lacks confidence just curse and call names.
That is so compelling to your arguments.
The changes the biologists report are similar in kind to the changes Dawkins had software for in The Blind Watchmaker. It is evolution.
#89 - No, not LITERALLY. He understands that much of it is allegories and morality tales. And, it also has inherent faults from being written and re-translated so long ago before we knew that the Earth was round and not the center of the solar system, and how the Sun works etc.
#91 I spontaneously generated. ;0)
Anyone know any good lizard recipes.
There was supposed to be a question mark there.
When one lacks evidence, just threaten Hell.
Another cool aspect to the study was that it was interrupted by the Croatian civil war in the mid-1990s, so when the researchers were finally able to return in 2004, they didn't know if they'd find any of their lizards at all. It made the results even more surprising.
Uh, huh. And santy claus is a jolly ol' elf.
When these reptilians sprout feathered wings and start to fly, or grow fur and milk teets, wake me up.
In the meantime, sparky, all that's being observed are characteristics in an already existing gene pool.
But, some people need that 'crutch of faith' that darwinism demands, so - look! santy claus too!
Un-freekin' believable.
Evidence, thanks for the clarification. But when you write @20, "I would say true abomination would be the change of one sex into another sex" as your justification for evading Deuteronomy's prohibition on your cross-dressing lifestyle (Deut 22:5), don't you think that you should take into account the meaning of the words as used by the people you are arguing against?
#94 It is God's word. Read it and see.
I read it plainly. The fact of the Earth being round was in the Bible before science discovered it.
Isa 40:22 [It is] He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Science and the Bible are not opposed to each other.
Truth is truth. Theory is theory and will change.
God does not change He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I have yet to encounter a single person who claims not to "believe in evolution" who can actually explain it accurately. I take it on faith that they must be out there, but I've never found one.
FALLOUT 3 better have lizards on a stick! I'm tellin' ya!
Evidence: As you can see, scads of people are offering up tons of evidence as to why evolution is viable and working theory.
You seem to think that == "shut up."
Well, yeah, in a way I guess it is.
i.e.: Your non-scientific scientific arguments are without merit and don't belong in a conversation about science; go take them to Sunday School.
Lizards on a stick, is all I'm sayin'!
Wait...Christians don't believe in Santa Claus?
Got to go for now.
I am going to church I hope you are interested enough to examine the evidence to where it leads.
You claim mountains of evidence and point me to microscopic levels.
Search for the truth.
God bless you all.
To make a Screaming Green Lizard:
Mix 1 part 151 rum and 1 part Green Chartreuse brandy snifter.
By the way, can you imagine the funding application for this one? "We want to take some lizards, drop them on an island, and uh, see what happens."
@Evidence-
"a drawing is not evidence"
Neither is a book.
And, I et to expend some useless knowledge: nobody ever thouht the Earth was flat, they thought it was shaped like a contact lens. cf. Dantes Divine Comedy.
"Evidence" is so far out there that I am really hoping it's someone's elaborate joke. But, having known people who argue that exact thing (and having been one of them) I'm afraid the conversation is all too serious.
Please be aware that characters like this do not represent the sentiments of all Christians, or, IMO, Christ's teachings. The whole evolution thing, in my mind, is absolutely not worth bringing into the picture.
The New Testament has much more to do with humility, selflessness, and personal responsibility than with winning arguments and making people bow to our beliefs.
It doesn't say "You are a fool for believing in a higher power."
I'll say it.
"I am going to church I hope you are interested enough to examine the evidence to where it leads."
As I understand it, it'll lead to something that looks similar to me with less hair and a bigger brain
"Evidence" is so far out there that I am really hoping it's someone's elaborate joke. But, having known people who argue that exact thing (and having been one of them) I'm afraid the conversation is all too serious.
Please be aware that characters like this do not represent the sentiments of all Christians, or, IMO, Christ's teachings. The whole evolution thing, in my mind, is absolutely not worth bringing into the picture.
The New Testament has much more to do with humility, selflessness, and personal responsibility than with winning arguments and making people bow to our beliefs.
#100 "But, some people need that 'crutch of faith' that darwinism demands, so - look! santy claus too!"
*tsk* Talk about twisted things round. Darwinism Is Not Faith! It's a beautiful hypothesis, supported by overwhelming evidence, everywhere you look for it. It's by far the best theory we have. It makes predictions that turn out to be right. Over and over again.
As a working theory, to be frank, it craps all over anything anyone else has offered. Even those jewish scribe guys back in the Iron Age.
Or was God just trying to trick us when he planted all those fossils in the ground? Oh wait - he was testing our faith, right? My god (no caps). The lengths evolutionists go to to wriggle away from the obvious.
The earth is flat. Black is white. Evolution doesn't happen.
Evidence's postings follow a kind of script that I've seen many, many other anti-evolutionist propagandists follow:
1: Make a lot of posts containing a lot of strawmen of Evolution / Biology;
2: Only respond to certain people who don't completely shut down his blather on Evolution or who try and engage him on religious topics;
3: Talk up his deity, ask for people to read the Bible;
4: Make some statements that are designed to get people to read the Bible / reference the Bible to refute them (example, The Bible saying the earth is round - it actually says it is flat and has four corners and sits on columns (Genesis!))
5: Claim to have to go, offer to pray for all the people in the room / forum / post.
I've seen this over, and over, and over again that I've often wondered: Is there a script? Is there someplace training people to do this? Or is it the same troll over and over and over again?
The changes the biologists report are similar in kind to the changes Dawkins had software for in The Blind Watchmaker. It is evolution.
@#45: Thanks for writing-up a thought out response. I was afraid I was just going to be mobbed with insults and FSM references. (that's why I usually keep my mouth shut about these things, and that's why I'll bow out of this discussion for now.)
(that: and it's lunchtime)
#109 Scottfree, you clearly haven't read the Divine Comedy. In it, Dante goes down through Hell to the center of the Earth, where Satan is, and when he goes past the center gravity reverses, as on a globe. Then he come out on the Mount of Purgatory, on the antipodes of Jerusalem. Dante, like most people in the High Middle Ages and before, knew the Earth was round. (An decent illustration of Dante's "cosmology" which he probably didn't want to be taken literally anyway: http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/Taschenp41.jpg)
This appalling ignorance of history, literature and religion seems pretty common among crowds like this, much like the ignorance of science among the opposite side. Enjoy talking around each other, folks.
Crispy Lizard Tail
Requires Level 12
Use: Restores 552 health over 24 sec. Must remain seated while eating. If you spend at least 10 seconds eating you will become well fed and gain 6 Stamina and Spirit for 15 min.
Cooldown: 1 sec
Charges: 1 (Expendable)
Item Level 22
Cost to make: 10 Gold 75 Silver
Auction: 8 Silver 65 Copper (1 Gold 73 Silver for 20)
Vendor value: 1 Silver 25 Copper
@ #115, bardfinn
Ya, there are trainers - the protestant evangelicals. Honestly, don't hate too much, because Evidence isn't too nasty, and he/she probably really is trying to do the right thing.
The problem is that entire segment of the population is so stuck in a self-reinforcing bubble that they don't realize how ridiculous some of it is to the rest of the world.
@#84: "I have a FOAF who is blacklisted by the arrogant asses in the scientific community, a blacklist that is not based on fact but on the beliefs of those in that community."
Do you now? Was this friend blacklisted because of his/her beliefs, or because (s)he wasn't doing his/her job? (E.g., teaching creationism in a science classroom.) There are plenty of religious scientists; perhaps the best example is Ken Miller, coauthor of the canonical high school biology textbook and a devout Catholic. You can believe whatever you want, but if those beliefs prevent you from doing your job, then yes, you should be fired. If you refuse to handle meat, I'm not sure you should work at McDonald's.
Also, I'm reminded of another name for FOAF stories: urban legends. Do you know that this even actually happened?
#115 - amen to that, brother!
I don't understand the Ben Stein slam. I haven't seen his film so I'm not qualified to criticize it or endorse it, but my understanding was that he attempts to address the possibility of intelligent design as an origin of life. Creatures evolve, there's no doubt about that, but I thought Stein was asking if it was possible that some supreme being brought life to these evolving creatures in the first place. Does he come out and say that species don't evolve? Again, I'm just wondering, as I haven't seen the film.
#109 ScottFree & #118 Roach
In fact Pythagoras posited that the Earth was a sphere, somewhere in the 500BCs, eliciting estimates of size from both Plato and Archimedes.
A few hundred years after Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, and later again Posidonius, correctly measured the circumference of the Earth (still in BC), 1500 years before Dante described his version.
History of Geodesy
The reason we think the people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat, seems to come from both this book, "The Warfare of Science with Theology" and this book "The Fourth Book of the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes".
@#123:
I too have not seen the movie, but from what I've read in reviews, it consists of two things: old rehashed arguments about how if we don't at this moment know exactly how everything evolved, God Did It™; and claims that evolution led directly to the Holocaust. Yes, that's right, apparently no one thought to kill the Jews until Darwin suggested it. At least, that's what Stein (himself a Jew) would have you believe. This is why everyone is so upset with the movie.
I am not sure if this has already been said (I didn't have time to read all the comments) but it seems odd to say this 'would normally take millions of years to play out'. What this shows is that such adaptive changes do not in fact need millions of years to play out. This is just normal, run-of-the-mill, natural selection in action, with a small initial gene pool and probably very strong selection pressure. It doesn't always take millions of years for changes of this magnitude to happen. Indeed, there are already many other known examples of rapid adaptation of a similar kind; no doubt someone has already linked to some of these above.
"I don't understand the Ben Stein slam. I haven't seen his film so I'm not qualified to criticize it or endorse it, but my understanding was that he attempts to address the possibility of intelligent design as an origin of life. Creatures evolve, there's no doubt about that, but I thought Stein was asking if it was possible that some supreme being brought life to these evolving creatures in the first place. Does he come out and say that species don't evolve? Again, I'm just wondering, as I haven't seen the film."
Yeah, maybe you should see the film before commenting on it. Just like Ben Stein should've learned about evolution before making a movie about it.
"This is not evolution. This is adaptation."
Right-- like when I was trapped on a desert island and couldn't digest the plants there, I adapted a second stomach and a larger jaw so I could chew my cud all day and ferment the plants in order to digest them. Adaptation. . . sure, makes perfect sense to me.
I wish my parents had placed all my baby food on 7-foot high shelves, so I could've adapted the height needed to compete in the NBA.
@Ill Lich: I love your comment! The authors of the study found that "the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.
'They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure.'
...Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said.
It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html
About slamming Ben Stein: he deserves to be slammed for trying to ridicule one of the greatest minds on earth, Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins' books are supreme examples of intelligence, clarity and honesty of thought, expressed with crystal clear prose.
I hate to see such a guy attacked by people who don't even understand the concepts of evolution, but despise anyone who dares not respect their little mythological and superstitious view of the world.
JanusNode
Here's a link that describes lots of rapid adaptation stories, with their refernces included.
The bonus?
It's from a chritian website, and is used to support an anti-evolution stance!
Deeper down the rabbit hole.. !
Thanks to Evidence @#44 for 'fessing up. You said "The fossil record shows us that a lot of animals died in a flood and are buried around the world."
I'm not a biologist and am not prepared to discuss the details of evolution. I'm personally prepared to consider that at certain key points perhaps a Great Being waved a magic wand and made key things happen - origin of life, certain key mutations perhaps. However, I've come to realize that people who argue against evolution in the name of Intelligent Design aren't actually interested in science. You say you just want to open up this particular bit of difficult science to alternative theories, but that's a lie.
The lie is, to get to what you truly believe you have to throw out great swaths of accepted, provable science, you have to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, you have to believe that Noah made an ark and supported a sample of every species for 40 days, you have to believe a lot of really silly stuff.
So when you argue that your "scientific" viewpoint belongs in schools, please include the whole structure that you want included. Young earth, spontaneous simultaneous generation of all species, Noah's ark, the lot of it. Please don't lie and say "Intelligent design is just people honestly questioning a few difficult scientific principles". You. Don't. Accept. Science. 'Fess up. Then we can just laugh at you as you deserve instead of bogging down our schools with your fairy tales.
Dear Travelina
Did I not see something about how the human appendix may be a recent thing and/or retained thing dating to when we started living in groups and would benefit from stored comensual gut flora?
the appendix does something like make white blood cells. in addition, it contains information pertinent but not directly relating to the main body.
#124
May I add Relativity of Wrong, an essay by Asimov to your list about flat earth theory, and science in general.
I must admit I skimmed this thread, but only because inherent stupidity was making my head hurt. May I suggest not using Stein's name, or purposely/obviously misspelling his name and movie title? I'm almost positive ignorant trolls are continuously searching the internet for his [movie's] name for places to flame, and I'd rather not deal with the headache.
Dear Takuan,
That's interesting. I found a paper on TalkOrigins that says "Our appendix is a developmental derivative and evolutionary vestige of the end of the much larger herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
So if we all suddenly turned herbivore again, how long would it take for humans to redevelop a proper caecum, I wonder?
ummm,don;t recollect much, have to root and burrow, but the neat thing to me was the idea that moving into relatively "dirty" settlements away from just leaving our crap on the ground as we moved camp meant needing a culture of bacteria for our immune system to be up to date on.... hence the port-a-potty appendix.... I'm not saying this well
mmmOK:
"understanding of immune-mediated biofilm formation by commensal bacteria in the mammalian gut, (b) on biofilm distribution in the large bowel, (c) the association of lymphoid tissue with the appendix, (d) the potential for biofilms to protect and support colonization by commensal bacteria, and (e) on the architecture of the human bowel, we propose that the human appendix is well suited as a “safe house” for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal tract are purged following exposure to a pathogen"
the idea being you near crap yourself to death on some bug and if you survive you need a safe cache of good flora to reinoculate the bowel....
now, did that mean we could be more free to move around because we carried our "sourdough starter" around with us like insane prospectors...
is there an evolutionary biologist in the house!?
(changing my meds, stupid GABA inhibitors anyway....what was wrong with ethanol, I UNDERSTOOD ethanol....
Cincinnati, OH has a population of Italian lizards, since ca. 1950 (http://www.lacerta.de/Themengebiete/Verschleppung%20und%20Aussetzung/Podarcis_muralis_in_Cincinnati.html).
Some science guy should work them up for comparison.
Thank you, Ill Lich (#128) for your comment. I was lucky enough to have an irritable biology professor who beat it into my head that evolution does *not* happen to a purpose. Can I say that again?
Evolution does *NOT* happen to a purpose!
And now I am forced to suffer through supposed scientific documentaries that try to tell me that "giraffes developed long necks to eat the leaves on the tops of trees" or "man began walking upright to see far distances over the long grasses." Ugh! Even supposed scientists get it wrong - such as this study on ducks. (Can't make a link for some reason)
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070430_duckgenital_evolution.html
Really, does it not make more sense to see the twisting as an unfortunate mutation that some of the males were able to capitalize on and eventually to adapt to?
Most unlucky mutations die off. They can't survive. But you only have to survive long enough to reproduce. If it kills you after that - too late, it's in the gene pool.
I could become an ID'er and say that God had a hand in the evolution of this species of lizard.
What probably happen was a larger look-a-like lizard ate the newly introduced lizard, or something new that they ate caused the evolution. Of course it could also be that these lizards had the genetic markers for the changes that occurred and that the new environment was optimal for these changes, or maybe the Croats had a chemical dump on the island, thus creating a race of super hungry, super smart lizards that will take over the world.
Who knows.
Like Racer X said: evolution is NOT intentional. (I had a great big paragraph about this, but then I looked at the rest of this post and decided s/he had already said it more succintly than me...)
What a lot of people forget, though, is that unless a mutation directly helps or hinders the animal, it will neither go away in time nor grow more prominent. Not all traits and abilities are there because they are useful-- perhaps they were useful once, but the animals have adapted in different ways and no longer need them.
Case in point: everyone has certain muscles on their face, that, when contracted and released rapidly, will make their ears wiggle. I am one of those unusual people who can voluntarily control those muscles, and wiggle my ears whenever I want. (Actually, I once met a man who could not only wiggle his ears but also rotate them, in different directions, independently of each other! That was really creepy...)
Anyway, being able to wiggle your ears does not impede your survival (I hope), and unless there is some culture I've never heard of where this is considered very attractive*, by no means will a greater percentage of people in the 48th century be able to wiggle their ears, but neither will the ability be entirely lost.
*Uh-oh... I just HAD to invoke Rule 34, didn't I? Sorry.
Also: does anyone know what why wall lizards are called that?
Another excellent hed. =]
If the new lizards can still make babies with the old lizards, then it's not quite evolution and is more like plasticity.
Still, totally awesome. Go UMass!
Because they climb on walls right near the desk where you sit and freak you into thinking it's a flashback from 1967.
#142, Gould used the word 'spandrels' (sounds like a warm puppy) to describe stuff that isn't selected for but isn't hurting anything, so what the hey, some of it's kinda cute, let it stay...right Mr. Cockatoo?
whne you roast lizards, do you just use a stick down the gullet and keep turning it over the coals? Or do you like to clean em, spread em toothpicks and get a more even toasting?
@141 JSG "I could become an ID'er and say that God had a hand in the evolution of this species of lizard."
The notion of God (or as I usually prefer 'god'-- more on that later) is not necessarily divorced from evolution. I think people have too simple or too literal a notion of god, perhaps from the belief that god created us in his image, therefore he must be a huge man with a white beard and flowing robes, as Michelangelo and Matt Groening have drawn him, or maybe like Zeus he can appear as a swan in order to have sex with a lithe young woman (why didn't I think of that come-on?). Let's say instead that god created everything in his image: rocks, trees, fish, pencils, rutebegas, 1964 Ford Falcons, language, scientific concepts, and so on. It is said god is everywhere in all things, how does one jibe that with god being human shaped?
One of the infamous anti-evolution "facts" I hear repeated is that the odds for life evolving are "one in in ten to the 32 power" or a one with 32 zeros after it. Sure seems like a big number, right? I guarantee you infinity is unimaginably larger. If you want to understand god, first understand infinity. Of course, like Zaphod Beeblebrox, it is impossible for a human to truly know infinity except maybe at death. Thus we arrive at god not as a sentient being, but as a philosophical concept (which is why I prefer not to capitalize 'god', it's not a proper name like Ted or Juanita or Dmitri, even if I sometimes refer to god as 'he' as is common.) In 'god' all things are possible, even evolution.
"Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself. . . I contain multitudes." -Walt Whitman
"Now there's more things in Tennessee. Than's a dreamed of in your philosophy." --The Cramps
well since you asked, Takuan, here's an instructional video from Noodlepie on making Giong Phan Thiet nuong moi, aka grilled lizards, filmed in Mui Ne, near Phan Thiet, the home of lizard eating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IEA-U8F2zc
SPANDRELS! That was the word! But don't mention spandrels (or Stephen Jay Gould) to people studying how language evolved, it tends to make them froth at the mouth. Though I can't say I much like the idea that the capacity for language was a spandrel, either...
Takuan-- Dunno if you were thinking of this, but I am forcibly reminded of that scene in the beginning of A Canticle For Leibowitz: "Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
a grand old tale, been so long i can remember it ...must dredge it up (literally)
skinning the lizards, mmm though that might make them burn too easy
skinning the lizard
Is that what you're calling it these days?
aye, that and waxin the dolphin
Thr s rl slgfst lrdy dp ndrwy t th fllwng ddrss.
http://scnc-cmmnty.scm.cm/tpc/15-nswrs-Crtnst-Nnsns/15-nswrs-Crtnst-Nnsns/300004623
nvt y t fll pn th rcks thr s yr vltnst frnds hv. Sk my nm thrght th thrd. strtd lt n th gm, rnd pst 100 blv. S why wst tm n ths wh r nly xprssng pnn.
s sl, th vltnsts hd n scnc t bck thr clms nd fll nt nsltng m nd my llgd lck f knwldg/scnc vn thgh thy cldn't nswr vn n f my qstns.
Hw typcl.
Ths s wht Bn Stn mnt.
Bn Stn s Jw. Th Jws prdc 1/3 f th wrld's gnss bt r nly 1/10,000th f th wrld ppltn. h, n Gd ndd fr tht n. Rght?
Whr r ll th gnss f vltn?
Rd hw vltn s rlgn, nt scnc, nd hs slghtrd (nd cntns t slghtr) mr nncnt vctms thn ll thr rlgns cmbnd.
wll rg wth y thr, nt hr.
D y hv th bckbn, r r y jst nthr whny lttl nvrtbrt wh lks t snp hlplss Jws?
Brng smthng tht drs t cll tslf scntst nd hv t try t nswr my qstns.
S y thr, tgh gys... f y'r nt t bsy sdng wth dlph gnst th Jws.
That's nice.
VORPALSWORD, Since brains wired for language were obviously selectable, I can't imagine linguists frothing over a word merely used to describe, um, a kind of hitchhiker. A spandrel (Gould again) has no systemic function; it's just along for the ride. I'm just not up on cross-discipline academic fueds.
Any god responsible for the being which wrote #153 needs to repeat Design 101.
If you follow IVA BIGGRUDGE, you'll never get the stink out.
Fct: f y dn't hv smpl f th DN frm ths lzrds BFR nd FTR ths s-clld vltn vnt, y'r jst wshflly drmng.
Scnc rqrs prf.
Y DMND t f crtnsts. B wllng t prvd t.
Pt yr mny (ctlly, MY stln tx mny) whr yr bg mth s.
ny scntst wh ws stdyng ths nmls nd yt ddn't gt smpl f rgnl DN fr ltr cmprsn ws grssly drlct n hs dty t Drwn nd shld b frd nd frcd t gv bck hs grnt mny.
wll nswr ny nd ll qstns. Bt frst, lv y wth th fct tht vltn s RLGN, nt fld f scnc. GRVTY s scnc. Nthngnss gvng brth t smthng s n dlt frytl, cmpndd by th fls ntn f mpty spc cmprssng smthng nt str. Hw ds th nthngnss f spc cmprss nythng? n nd n t gs.
W crtnsts tr f prptlly nswrng th sm ld qstns. Y wrn't lstnng thn nd y rn't nw.
Th Chrch f Drwn (vltn) hs ths fr, wrrng dnmntns:
1) Clsscl - wht Drwn tght
2) Pncttd qlbrm - lzrd brthd brd - bng tght t kds nw
3) Pn Sprm - Str Trk's ln prgntrs plntd s hr s dn't bthr lkng fr tht lsv prf ths dmn crtnsts dmnd
4) Thstc vltn - Gd crtd mb n hs mg - s h's lr snc h clld t mn.
f y cll m fl fr blvng n Gd, cn gt th thr thr dnmntns f vltn t kck yr ss fr m sng th dt y lv s mch. t's blf systm nd tht's th Wbstr's dctnry dfntn f RLGN. Dl wth t.
Ths f y wh thnk vltn nd th Bbl r nt mtlly xclsv r kddng yrslvs. Gd crtd wtr wrld wth N dth. Drwn drmd fr wrld wth nthng bt dth.
s fr ths stpd lzrds, t's clld rcssv gn. Prv thrws.
S my nndng trd n smlr vn hr...
http://scnc-cmmnty.scm.cm/tpc/15-nswrs-Crtnst-Nnsns/15-nswrs-Crtnst-Nnsns/300004623&strt=151
lft my ml ddr thr. f y rd ll my psts nd cn nswr vn N f my mlln qstns thn wll hpply rply t yr cmmnts.
f nt, ddn't rlly wnn dl wth y nywy.
(Ths s my ffth ttmpt t pst t ths blg. Myb thy wll fnlly sprt wrkng st f jwls nd pst ths n. Hy... nw THT wld b prf f vltn snc thy bvsly ddn't hv ny bfr ths!)
@ 158 "Fact: if you don't have a sample of the DNA from those lizards BEFORE and AFTER..."
Fact: They do. Did you not bother reading the article?
Snippet from "Iva Biggrudge" over at the sciam forums:
Are any of you neo-pagan [Jehova's] Witnesses out there? Would you like to fight me as well? Unlike this coward, will you answer my questions, or will you just lurk and insult like this little boy is doing me?
You got a big mouth on you, huh? Seems pretty hateful if you ask me. Kinda like a Nazi.
Fundies? In MY boingboing?
#158 "Darwin dreamed a fire world with nothing but death."
Wow! Where did Darwin write about this fire world? Sources, please.
"I left my email addr there. If you read all my posts and can answer even ONE of my million questions then I will happily reply to your comments."
We'd answer your `millions' of questions, but you'd never believe them, because they go against your firmly held faith.
Oh yeah, also:
You DEMAND it of creationists. Be willing to provide it.
Put your money (actually, MY stolen tax money) where your big mouth is.
Scientists all over the world work hard all day long to prove things. Thats ALL they do. They don't say "well, I don't know what happened, guess Darwin did it!"
Thats because Darwin isn't a god, there's is no "Church of Darwin'. He was a scientist and scientists are just out there looking for answers. You see, the main difference between you ID folks and scientists is that scientists don't make assumptions. At all. There is not faith involved. If there's no proof that god made this or that, and there is contradictory evidence, then no scientist will believe that god did make this or that.
Thats where the burden of proof comes in. Scientists don't "have faith" in the scientific theory of evolution, and so if you can come up with some kind of proof that god made man, scientists will believe you. The scientists don't have to prove their point, they already have. You have to disprove them.
So, what have you got? And have a blessed day!
Those who worship a deity and those who do not worship a deity cannot reconcile their views without a lot of trouble, guys.
Consider this; if you believe in some sort of God and follow religious rules to appease that God (or attain whatever goal you see fit), you stand on a great riverbank.
If you don't, you stand on the opposite side.
There is no common ground. You cannot draw a line and compromise, you cannot meet. You cannot speak the other's language. If you attempt to reach the other's viewpoint, you must go all the way and convert.
Else, you will drown.
Heh, once again in the linked sciam forums I see the following technique.
"Evolution says a rock gave birth to a dog that gave birth to a cat!"
"No it doesn't"
"Yes it does, therefore evolution is rubbish! Show me a cow that gave birth to a bird"
"We can't."
"Well evolution says you should!"
"What? No it doesn't".
Repeat ad nauseum, as per Kent Hovind.
T Tmbl,
nvr sd ny sch thng y stnkng lr.
nd Drwn's prcs thry s wrld brn f fr whch blh blh blh frm th Bg Bng ftr t mrclsly wshd tslf nt bng.
rlly dtst y slf-rghts, rgn-f-Spcs thmpng, fndmntlst vltnsts.
r shll cll y Fnds?
Y sckn m s y stnd n pl f dd Jws prchng bt hw grt YR rlgn s ftr t klld thm.
n ll my prvs psts t th thr st, lrdy dsprvd ll ths pgn crp.
Ds nyn t thr hv ny qstns y'd lk nswrd?
D nn f y hv th crg t dmt whch f th fr DNMNTNS f th Chrch f Drwn y blng t?
Nbdy t th thr sd hd th blls thr.
Hv n vlvd vnng, thn!
@Tomble
"Evolution says a rock gave birth to a dog that gave birth to a cat!"
"No it doesn't"
"Yes it does, therefore evolution is rubbish! Show me a cow that gave birth to a bird"
"We can't."
"Well evolution says you should!"
"What? No it doesn't".
Repeat ad nauseum, as per Kent Hovind.
ahhhh that reminds me of that old saw. "If you can't beat them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
@Takuan
When cooking a lizard the stick is optional. I prefer butterflying the carcass, and tossing the critter on a George Foreman grill for 15 minutes. Deelish!
Well, since Iva Biggrudge has already lost his arguments through Godwin's Law, responding does seem a little pointless. It is, however, hard to let slide his fascinatingly loopy assertion that believers in evolution were somehow responsible for the Holocaust. Hitler was an avowed Christian who frequently referred to his faith and used it as justification for his crusade against the Jews. Eugenics, a pseudo-science (much like "Intelligent Design") based on a misunderstanding of Darwin's theories, was used as an excuse for the Holocaust, but blaming Darwin for the actions of the Nazi's is rather like blaming Einstein for a lot of bad science fiction - neither is responsible for people being too dumb to understand what they were actually saying. Unless, of course, he's willing to take responsibly for all the stupid shit people have pulled over the centuries in the name of God?
The really interesting thing that "debates" like this bring out is the hollowness of some people's faith. Iva Biggrudge, for example, is enraged at the thought that other people don't believe in his god. Why? Does their disbelief hurt Him? Does he think that God needs his help?
Based on their actions and the way they cannot tolerate dissent, either the faith of Biggrudge and his ilk is incredibly fragile and easily damaged, or they don't really believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient. If they really believed in God in the way they claim, they'd pity those who don't have faith and know that, God will carry on just fine wether we believe in Him or not. I certainly don't think that Biggrudge is trying to "save" us by telling people how much he detests people who believe in evolution. Do you?
Though I usually steer clear of debating creationists I felt I should clear up a couple of misconceptions expressed in IVABIGGRUDGE's post. First, a quotation:
"The Church of Darwin (evolution) has these four, warring denominations:
1) Classical - what Darwin taught
2) Punctuated Equilibrium - lizard birthed a bird - being taught to kids now
3) Pan Spermia - Star Trek's alien progenitors planted us here so don't bother looking for that elusive proof those damn creationists demand
4) Theistic evolution - God created amoeba in his image - so he's a liar since he called it a man."
These are not "warring denominations". "Classical" Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium do not disagree with each other. Stephen Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium merely disagree over the mechanism of evolutionary change, not whether it happens or not.
Panspermia has nothing to do with aliens, from Star Trek or otherwise. Just that life at it's most basic form (amino acids etc.) exists elsewhere in the universe and somewhere along the line ended up here. Maybe a comet or asteroid impact, something like that. Not that Earth was deliberately "seeded".
As for his definition of "Theistic evolution", I'm not sure what he's talking about. God's an amoeba or somesuch nonsense. On the other hand, why not. Makes about as much sense as anything else I guess.
BTW, love the Ben Stein gag.
Man, the evolution of hardcore Creationists into sane, thinking humans is gonna take forever.
"Consider the lilies of the field. They do not toil, neither do they spin."
*gags*
Not my favorite thread to read.
...I'm going to have to intelligently design myself a stiff drink, in an attempt to erase the pure amount of stupidity from my mind, as soon as I can muster the will power to make it spontaneously appear in front of me.
Someone wake me when the riff-raff leave, and do make sure they don't steal our sense of wonderful on their way out.
#106 Regarding getting pointed to microscopic levels: even when you are looking at big changes, they ultimately come from the microscopic level. Each outward change is reflected genetically, so when looking for evidence, persons of science look to the genetic code.
The trouble the religious folk have with evolution is that it is BIG. It is not readily seen in one lifespan, and I guess some people can't get their brains wrapped around something that large.
#89 Does the Pope believe in the Bible? You're kidding, right? Catholics are the original believers in the Bible. Just because he doesn't thump it frequently and loudly doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in it! He reads from it every mass, unlike most Xtians, who only know a handful of verses to use as weapons. Look at it this way: Evangelicals and other sects of Christianity EVOLVED from Catholicism over many generations.
I'm surprised no one has brought up the sex vs. Intelligent Delivery (stork theory) debate. It seems to run along the same vein.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the sex vs. Intelligent Delivery (stork theory) debate. It seems to run along the same vein.
If anyone reading this wants to see some very good, scientifically accurate, well explained proof of evolution in four and a half minutes have a look at;
Ken Miller on Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=related
A very well respected biologist, also a theist.
This is very compelling evidence, in fact I would say irrefutable proof, that humans and the other great apes evolved from a common ancestor.
/thread
Y ppl r rlly t f tch wth yr wn thry f y dn't rcgnz th trth bt t whn y rd t.
vltn DS clm th rth ws brn s fry bll. Thy shvld tht l dwn my thrt my whl lf. Whr wr y t hv mssd t?
Stphn J Gld s psd scntst wh cldn't gt RL jb s plmbr, s h hd t trn t Drwnn Rsrch nd spng ff mny stln frm th S tx pyrs t rsrch crp hs lyng frnds sy s lrdy prvn (t lst mr r lss). Pncttd qlbrm s nt HS nvntn. t ws nvntd by Gldschmdt n th 1920s t xpln wy th gps n th fssl rcrd th Clsscl Drwnst lrs stll sy rn't tht bg prblm. N? Thn why th nd fr fllw vs t xpln t wy?
TH mssng lnk? Thr shld b TRLLNS lyng rnd ll vr th plc.
D pty y s y thght shld. Bt 'm nt gnn l dwn nd tk t s y l bt m nd MY blfs nd try t mk D lk stpd whn t s LD (nntllgnt LCK f dsgn) tht hs rcks n ts hd.
Dd nyn rg wth th SCNC mntnd r nly th dscrptn f th fr dnmntns f Drwnsm?
nd th Pp s hll-bnd hrtc fr nt crrctng th trlln ls nd rrrs f th Cthlc s-clld chrch whch SLGHTRD th frst RL Chrstns (stp cllng s xtns, Jss s nt n X), thn brd thm ndr th Vtcn t cncl ts shm. (s ctcmbs) thrws, thy'd hv lft thm n th fld lk thy dd th Mslms nd Jws thy btchrd.
Th Cthlcs rmvd th Scnd Cmmndmnt frm THR Bbls whch sys NT t bw t dls r vn mk "grvn mgs" thn splt th Tnth Cmmndmnt n TW nd sctd th rst pwrds. Cthlcs DN'T VN KNW thr s cmmndmnt gnst mkng grvn mgs nd bwng t dls r thy wld gt thm th HLL t f thr s-clld Chrchs. Thy ls dn't wrn thr brndd fllwrs bt th mrk f th bst, s thr s clt n Flrd NW f Cthlcs wh brndd 666 n thr frhds t hnr thr nw fls Chrst thr. Jss wrnd ths bzs wld shw p.
nd dn't vn gt m strtd n Mss(chrch srvc) n Ltn whn nbdy bt lwyrs/dctrs spk t. S t whm s th Pp spkng? H's tryng t mprss ppl wth hw smrt H s nstd f hw smrt GD s. t s NT vrythng Chrst tght.
Tk tn Hl Mrs nd cll m n th mrnng? "s nt vn rpttns s th HTHN d."
Wlld p nns - n ctl prctc, s mzn fr mr.
Sltry mnstrs nd bbs - "Sht nt yrslvs wy... lt yr lght s shn nt th wrld". Hw cn t f y'r lckd wy n hdng nggng n gy sx wth thr mnks nd nns?
nd sn't hmsxlty n bmntn n th ys f Gd (1Tm9)? Ys.
t srvs n prps bt slfsh stsfctn. Gys rn't gy. Thy r msrbl nd thy l bt thr mtvs JST LK VLTNSTS.
Whn s th lst tm GYS dnncd th hmsxl pdphls f th Cthlc Chrch? Hw bt dmndng NMBL b dsbndd r bttr yt xctd?
NMBL mns Nrth mrcn Mn-By LV SSctn - ts mtt s "ght s t lt."
D thy rlly wnt m t fnnc th cr fr DS whn spnd ll my tm hdng my kds frm ppl lk thm nd Y?
cn't spr th DS rsrch ny mr csh... t's ll bn stln by th RS t py fr brtns nd vltn rsrch.
grp bt SCL sss, bt dn't lt th nxt grprs fl y.
knw th scnc prts vn bttr thn thr s-clld scntsts.
'v bn fghtng ths fght LT lngr thn Bn Stn.
Htlr ws CHRSTN?!?!?!?!?
r y t f yr F'ng mnd?
Htlr ws crzy ccltst wh hd sncs (spllng?) nd tlkd t hmslf nd hs nnr dmn s rglrly tht th prmry ttmpts gnst hs lf wr frm th GRMN HGH CMMND.
Th fllwng LL prctcd wht DRWN prchd:
Htlr, Pl Pt (Khmr Rg Cmbdn msscr), M (Chns msscrs), Lnn/Stln (Rssn Msscrs), brtn (nbrn msscrs)
'm sr thr r lts mr bt 'm trd, hvng fght y ppl ll nght. Tht's plnty f glt fr nw.
f y blng t grp, y r bth blssd by ts gd nd crsd by ts vls.
Dn't hd frm thm lk th Pp hs hs. mbrc th trth nd crrct yr ppl's mstks.
nd s fr th "vdnc" f vltn n ths rtcl. Th xmpls y gv r clld "bcmng bggr lzrd". . thy'v bn tng bttr n thr nw hm.
Rptls cntn t grw thr ntr lf. Tht s whr th dnsrs wnt... rght nt Nh's rk... bt s lttl btty lzrds jst lk w hv tdy.
f vrybdy dd bfr pbrty, y'd lgh t sm dt wh prpsd th chngs w'v bsrvd. n Nh's dy, bfr wtr nd dth cvrd th whl rth, shrtnng lfspns by fctr f tn, ppl rtnly lvd lmst thsnd yrs. Fnny hw n vs vr jmp n tht, hh?
Thr's rsn, bt 'm nt gnn tll y.
Myb yr bddy Stphn J Gld wll.
I forgot this one:
I too have developed an appendage to my gut. Yep, happened around the age of 21 when I began consuming fermented grains.
Take that evos!
The Troll is back.
I really do go to church on Wednesday and twice on Sunday so I did not just bail.
@#125
Ben's movie never presented a view really he just asked for open debate.
You need to see it before you repeat what others have said.
On evolution and the holocaust.
Stein, a jew, could have played the Hitler killed the Jews card but did not.
He showed that Hitler, and his belief in evolution, killed Germans who did not measure up to his standards so he could speed up evolution. He only visited a Jewish monument before he left.
Like it or not this is what Darwin was abdicating in his book.
Most of you say Darwin is not about origins yet that is the title of his book!
Read the title, On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.
It is supposed to be about origins and favored races.
Who ever can show they are the oldest race wins.
Who is the favored race? Africans, French, British or Japanese?
Who can "prove" that is the superior race and can lord it over the rest of the world.
Dangerous stuff.
I think, Iva, that you still don't get it. You think that you're having a scientific discussion and you point vaguely to some imagined proof, but you are really having a philosophical discussion.
Science can't argue with religion. It just can't. The person arguing for religion can always just say "I don't believe that" and the argument is over. Thats why ID has to stay out of the science classroom.
It's religion, not science, faith not fact.
#178 According to "Iva Biggrudge" the Jews have over one third of the worlds "geniuses" and are god's chosen people.
Myself, I don't remember taking the survey to find out if I'm a genius or not. Nope. Never heard about how the whole world was given an IQ test to see which race was the most superior. Maybe I was sick that day.
Iva Buggridge @175 et al: I guess you're going to get big bonus points for preaching to the heathens, but what does all that anti-catholic, anti-gay nonsense have to do with the topic?
Talking of which, Goldschmidt's saltation theory has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. In fact, saltation's "hopeful monsters" is quite an anti-evolutionary theory, describing as it does a kind of instantaneous (single-generation) speciation. An event for which there is not a single shred of a suggestion of evidence anywhere on Earth, and which no evolutionary scientist takes seriously.
Evidence @178: I think you'll find that you'll discover more about a book by reading the book rather than just the title.
And if you can get into the habit of reading, you might also find Darwin's The Descent of Man and The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals quite enlightening as to Darwin's attitude to race.
Nuh uh.
@Evidence:
"Like it or not this is what Darwin was abdicating in his book."
Huh? What newfangled use of "abdicate" are you using?
~~~
Evidence just mixed up "advocate" and "abdicate".
Advocate: to publicly recommend or support.
Abdicate: to renounce one's position, or to fail to fulfill one's duty.
I'm all for arguing it out with creationists and intelligent design people, but we have to recognize that what gets lost every time we do this is an intelligent discussion about evolution between people who believe in it, and want to know more about it. Essentially every time there's a discussion like the one above, it's at the expense of an intelligent discussion about evolution where people could learn more about it.
I'd like to see some discussions restricted to those who take it as a given that evolution is the process by which life evolved on Earth. In other words, at least a few discussions where the creationist trolls are shitcanned from the get-go.
One of the reasons why evolution is poorly understood is because each discussion gets stuck at the door between its attackers and defenders.
@ B Dagger Lee
Sir,
You are right.
~~~
#186 I agree - it's generally not that interesting to talk about evolution with evolution deniers/ID/creationists (unless you approach it from a folklorist standpoint). It's MUCH more productive and interesting to talk about the Problem of Evil with them. It would be nice if we could have a Problem of Evil discussion as a sort of unicorn chaser.
It's not very Boing Boing-y though, I suppose. And it would definitely get messy.
I note how "Iva Biggrudge" says evolution supporters "have no science . . . and fell to insulting me", when he does exactly that (calls Stephen Gould "pseudo scientist" and a "failed plumber", essentially calls all Darwin supporters anti-Semites, plus a lot of his "science" is little more than creationist talking-points, all of which ARE disproven at the very same Scientific American website he provides a link to). I also note the slow descent into hysteria: he's a long way from thoughtfully debating evolution when he's laying Hitler's crimes at the feet of Darwin, or suddenly complaining about AIDS research, NAMBLA, and abortion.
The bottom line with "Iva Bigggrudge" and "Evidence" is that if an honest person with no religious agenda looks at both sides of the argument and makes a decision in favor of evolution they will not accept that, and will browbeat that person into submission. If this were an actual public town-hall-meeting debate they would probably hog the mic and drown out all dissent (perhaps I'm wrong about them, BUT I've seen this before; when you've got GOD on your side you are beyond reproach, you are doing the most important work known, nothing else matters), they are not interested in debate, they are interested in forcing their ideas down your throat. Scientists change their theories all the time when solid evidence shows them they were wrong, but a creationist will never change his tune, instead they bend-over-backwards to deny the evidence. I listened to their ideas and decided they weren't convincing, so apparently I've been brainwashed by Darwin and need to hear their same ideas again and again-- do they really think that repeating the same lines over and over is going to suddenly change my mind? I've heard their arguments, I'm not convinced. Period.
So ultimately trying to debate them is pointless. Eventually you will realize that both sides are just repeating the same arguments over and over, and you will give up in disgust, at which point the creationist claims victory (at least for his ego).
Here's one last grenade for Iva Biggruge and Evidence: GOD is all powerful, I don't think he really needs you to defend his creation (if he did then he wouldn't be so all-powerful, would he?) Don't worry about us evil non-believers, we'll be going to hell and suffering in burning lakes of fire for all eternity-- isn't that enough for you? Or do you really need to to torture us in this life too? Think of how much fun you will have in heaven knowing you were right all along, and those of us who wouldn't listen are suffering unimaginable tortures. Good times.
I think it's important to recognize that intelligent design is the lie that these people tell to try to get their foot in the door to teach their hateful religion in our schools.
Both BigGrudge and Evidence have said that they not only reject evolution but that they reject any science that suggests that the earth is older than a few thousand years, that the UNIVERSE is older than a few thousand years, that Noah's ark isn't literally true, etc. They have decided that "The Origin of the Species" includes any cosmology, physics, or any science that doesn't agree with the idea that one or another of the creation stories in the bible is literal truth.
They want science out of schools.
It's convenient that they occasionally become so unhinged as they are here to spew their hate so openly as to open themselves up to the mockery they deserve. Let's try to keep them out in the open when they try to invade our schools with their lies that intelligent design is all they want. Make sure that people know that they really want to destroy all science. Let them argue amongst themselves about which preposterous version of "literal truth" they adhere to. Young earth? Old earth? Noah's ark, true or false? If the bible is unambiguous literal truth, how come you have disagreements among yourselves?
#189-
Well said! And with that well-reasoned statement, we who are destined to burn in hell (hee hee! Makes me chuckle every time) can walk away from this discussion, comforted in the knowledge that nothing we can say will convince those like BigGrudge to think differently, so there's no point in trying.
Ideas can never alter beliefs with the BigGrudge's of the world. I'm just happy to know that I have ideas, not beliefs, and that my ideas about where we all came from may change as new evidence is literally and figuratively unearthed. Scientific curiosity and inquiry is wonderful!
@ all the scientists in the thread, I agree with Hendry's comment at the end of the article, that the change in the lizards needs to be confirmed as genetic. I see no reason that it would not be: the initial population of 5 pairs would no doubt experience strong selection pressures, and the changes observed would offer a competitive advantage.
It could still be argued that the changes observed in the lizards are the result of a changing diet, although personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that. A controlled experiment in which typical Italian wall lizards were raised under the same conditions as individuals of the new island population ought to establish that the differences are heritable, and therefore the direct result of either the founder effect or of selection. In either case, it's evolution in action, pure and simple.
Yay science and scientific rigor!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
/*
I propose that we have a separate thread discussing
the content of the article marked as above. This isn't the place to engage in the big argument about evolution, there are other places on the internet where people have done so more capably than we will - this applies for both sides - and we all know how to find it. Essentially, we've had 180 comments of noise, there hasn't been anything new here.
*/
So has anyone in the room read the article?
Not to start another meta-discussion, but can anyone tell me why the popular press rarely cites the paper they're talking about properly? They only mention "The findings were published in March in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." It's a friggin weekly journal, don't make me do the work of finding the exact issue!
Okay, that's enough bitching from me, I'm going to go dig up the article and see what it says, it sounds rather interesting.
~~~
@185 Vorpalsword
I realized the mistake, I was trying to point out something to the person claiming such intellectual might.
For as Jesus said, "Let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone."
~~~
#194 For as Jesus said, "Let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone."
Jesus did not say that.
I am a creationist.
ID is a step in the right direction for scientists who actually do science. ID is a trail that will lead you to creationism. That is what most of you just do not want to allow.
How does evolution explain things that are irreducibly complex?
Creationism fears no science but encourages it.
Science be definition is having knowledge not theory. Work with theories, say they are theories
*****
The Earth is about 6,000 years old, is that young? Young or old is comparative. Compared to millions of years it is young, compared to us it is ancient.
******
I believe Noah's Ark is true. Why do you deny a global flood on a world that is covered with water yet insist on a flood on Mars that has no water?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
It was in the March 25th, issue, for anyone who cares.
~~~
silly waste of electrons
But in the Book of Evolution, is it not written:
"Let no man be still, for his genetics are not."
Ev 29:12
And does Jesus not ruminate:
"Blessed are the monkeys, for amongst them we have a common cousin."
Ev 40:15
I can't remember any more, I'm sure the you other readers can look up your bibles and include some more.
An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has MOAR living stuff, mooes, An creepie tings, An otehr aminals. It happen so tehre.25 An Ceiling Cat doed moar living stuff, mooes, An creepies, An otehr animuls, An did not eated tehm.
26 An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz us do peeps like uz, becuz we ish teh qte, An let min p0wnz0r becuz tehy has can openers.
27 So Ceiling Cat createded teh peeps taht waz like him, can has can openers he maed tehm, min An womin wuz maeded, but he did not eated tehm.
28 An Ceiling Cat sed them O hai maek bebehs kthx, An p0wn teh waterz, no waterz An teh firmmint, An evry stufs.
29 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it.30 For evry createded stufs tehre are the fuudz, to the burdies, teh creepiez, An teh mooes, so tehre. It happen. Iz good.
31 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthxbai.
An let min p0wnz0r becuz tehy has can openers
O hai maek bebehs kthx
Haha haha ha
Let us examine EVIDENCE's last post (not that I really want to engage in this pointless game anymore, but . . . )
#194 For as Jesus said, "Let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone."
Jesus did not say that.
**[OK-- fair enough. I suspect that was a joke on the part of JAKETHESNAKE, but of course, right over the head of goode pastor Evidence.]
I am a creationist.
**[no kidding]
ID is a step in the right direction for scientists who actually do science. ID is a trail that will lead you to creationism. That is what most of you just do not want to allow.
**[OK-- here we go. "Scientists who actually do science", so he gets to deny professional scientists are real scientists, men who have spent years earning their doctorates, men who make their living looking for clues and trying to figure out how things work, men who when they make a mistake admit error and modify their thesis (something an IDer will never do-- you can't redact the Bible). Then the phrase "... you just do not want to allow"-- EVIDENCE needs to take a long hard look hard in the mirror. Science for centuries allowed for the creation myth to be viewed as truth, and only questioned it when Darwin saw the pattern that pointed to evolution. As it stands now, it is the IDers do NOT allow ANY evidence of evolution to be considered valid, whereas real scientists will allow anything if it has evidence to back it up. Too often creationist "evidence" consists of Bible quotes and "magic"-- for example see the Noah's Ark section below.]
How does evolution explain things that are irreducibly complex?
**[If you perhaps read the Scientific American article cited by Iva Biggruge above you would know how evolution does this. Basically "irreducibly complex" is a lazy man saying "I can't figure this out, so therefore it can't be figured out by anybody, ever." In the 1930's most people insisted man would never walk on the moon, obviously it was tough to figure out HOW it could ever be done, but it WAS done (or does EVIDENCE deny that too, after all it wasn't in the Bible?) The flagellum that IDers point to as "irreducibly complex" HAS been shown to have a predecessor in another organism. It is almost exactly the same, minus one molecule. This follows evolutionary theory perfectly.]
Creationism fears no science but encourages it.
**[Sure, but only when it proves the Bible correct. Evolution IS science and you do not encourage that, just like Copernican theory was denied by the church for years.]
Science by definition is having knowledge not theory. Work with theories, say they are theories
**[The word "science" comes from the Latin for "knowledge", but science is defined more correctly as " a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method." "Science" is not strictly "knowledge" any more than any other modern word based on an ancient root is strictly defined as that root, like "idiot" is derived from the Greek "individual" or "citizen"-- if I referred to EVIDENCE as an idiot he wouldn't say "Thank you very much, I AM indeed an citizen." (Or maybe I assume too much there.) As for "theories", well. . . the theory of relativity is "just a theory" too, perhaps EVIDENCE will allow us to store a nuclear device in his basement; sure, in theory he might get vaporized, but hey, it's just a theory.]
The Earth is about 6,000 years old, is that young? Young or old is comparative. Compared to millions of years it is young, compared to us it is ancient.
**[There doesn't seem to be any point to this except to play with words. Whatever turns you on EVIDENCE.]
I believe Noah's Ark is true. Why do you deny a global flood on a world that is covered with water yet insist on a flood on Mars that has no water?
**[OK, the Noah's Ark myth: the number and size of the animals involved vs. the size of the ark, the food needed to sustain them for 40 days, the fact that there is not enough water on Earth to completely submerge all the continents, let alone the various mountain ranges, etc.-- creationists use GOD (a.k.a. "magic") not science to explain that away. How convenient. As for Mars, strictly speaking he is correct, Mars has no water, it does have quite a lot of ice though, which if I am not mistaken, can easily be turned into water (without the use of magic, I might add.) ]
**I am done arguing with the likes of EVIDENCE. I'm sure he will reply with more arguments, but like I mentioned before, what point is there in arguing-- I know all his arguments already, I dissected every one in this last post. I'm not ignorant of his ideas, I honestly considered them years ago, they didn't stand up to scrutiny. I don't see any reason to believe his theories any more than I see any reason to believe the ancient "phlogiston theory" of matter.
@#195 - thanks for your honesty. Please have the integrity to be consistent should your community push for ID to be taught in your local schools. Stand up, be proud, say "I believe that the following topics in science should only be taught from a biblical perspective". I think you'll find that people who don't understand evolution and feel a little uneasy about it might support you on ID but would laugh you out of the room if you tried to convince them that 2 of every species were literally carried on a boat for 40 days/nights.
@ Evidence:
"The Earth is about 6,000 years old"
And you're about 6,000 IQ points shy of an eggplant, evidently. Hey, listen, I've been to the Creation Museum. I've seen the fatuous swill you natives claim as "the truth," and it's faulty science, plain and simple.
Some of the "evidence" highlighted, for those of you unwilling to spend the $20 in Christian-bilking admission fees:
1. Pangaea is a myth. Diversity among species is the direct result of monkeys traveling back and forth between continents on rafts made of sticks and moss. I shit you not.
2. Men hunted dinosaurs into extinction. Oh, and classical depictions of dragons are man's visual interpretation of this dramatic occurrence. BWAHAHAHA!
3. Roman centurions were actually frat boys from the south. (In one of the films, a soldier is heard to say, "I tell you what," more than once.)
Jesus, save us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment"
Adaptation is not evolution it's just good design by the Creator.
"were not built to digest a vegetarian diet"
Who built them? God? I think so.
"developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers" I suspect that they had these valves and now these same valves are bigger by use.
"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," "bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider"
A bigger belly is evolution? If it had never had a belly and grew one now that is new information being added. Same thing if it grew a head and jaws. Weak, so very, very weak.
Did you all not notice this paragraph.
"What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study."
This closing sentence too.
"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
Might be! Might be evolution! I thought you all "knew" something!
There will never be a follow up study cited.
"Might be! Might be!"
Evidence stamps foot in righteous indignation. What a crybaby. You're not offering a more compelling explanation for the phenomena, I hate to tell you.
"How does evolution explain things that are irreducibly complex?"
This argument only works if you're stupid enough to believe that anything is "irreducibly complex."
Any scientist will tell you that, while evolution is staggeringly complex, it is defined by a finite set of particulars. But we're not going to get anywhere by thumbing our noses at empirical research.
"You're not offering a more compelling explanation for the phenomena, I hate to tell you."
Yes I am. We, and all creatures, are fearfully and wonderfully made.
The lizards were made with the ability to eat insects or vegetation just like you and I are.
Common design from a common designer.
You wanted to talk about the article. So I point out points to ponder and you bury your heads and say I am stamping my feet. I am just passionate.
If you all decide you want to be left alone I will leave you alone until the next article on evolution.
Let me know.
"We, and all creatures, are fearfully and wonderfully made."
That's not a more compelling argument than the one given in the article. It's not an argument at all. It's a myth. Hell, it's barely a sentence.
I don't speak for everyone, but I never said that I wanted to discuss the article. I just joined the discussion to call you an imbecile.
@ swampdog
The bible says they were on the ark for around a year not just 40 days.
It is feasible and does not take great faith to believe it.
I am not trashing anyone but most Bible knowledge on here is misrepresented. Are most you biblically illiterate or have never really consider it?
Not throwing a rock just asking a question.
Evidence:
can you please explain to me how all these animals fit on the ark (according to the dimensions of the ark in Genesis) for a year, including enough food for all them for a year?
And I would appreciate if you use science, don't wimp out and say "God did it."
Like I said, it is to laugh.
Hippos and elephants and giraffes and zebras and antelope and hedgehogs and horses and cows and water buffalo and moose and elk and wolves and rhinos and lions and tigers and bears all peacefully coexisted and ate and drank (not each other!) and pooped for a YEAR!??!
Ha, I say, and Ha ha ha.
I guess that may be where Noah and his family developed the skill for shoveling shit that so well serves the x-ian community today.
As I said, please present your complete view of "science" when you ask for ID to be taught in school. I await the sound of laughter.
(I am not in the least offended to be called biblically illiterate. I'm probably better informed about the bible than the average, but whether Noah spent 40 days, a year, or 40 years on a boat in your fairy tale makes no difference whatsoever to me other than to increase the absurdity of taking the bible literally. Also please note that many of the "biblically illiterate" comments in this thread are satire. You may not have noticed.)
(my use of x-ian as an abbreviation for christian is something I copied from a pastor who sat next to me on a plane composing a sermon on his lap top. It is meant as shorthand not as insult.)
It is feasible and does not take great faith to believe it.
Sources?
Are most you biblically illiterate or have never really consider it?
I'd say plenty on here have perused more of the bible, than plenty of people who portend to go by it's word.
"We, and all creatures, are fearfully and wonderfully made."
Why was God so fearful when he created us? Or is that not what you meant to say? Your inability to use the English language, combined with your attempts to portray yourself as a serious thinker, leave me with the feeling that you're most likely a very slow reader.
Ten bucks says I've read the Bible more times than you have. And an extra fifty bucks says that I understand it better than you do. In fact, I'll bet that I read more books in 2007 than you've read in a lifetime. But this isn't about who's read more books, really... I am every bit as convinced that your retention stinks, too. You may not be "trashing anyone," but you are indeed making an effort to trivialize the observations and diminish the reputations of scientists who are infinitely more reasonable than you. Hundreds of years of earnest investigation down the toilet, if you had your way.
Let me ask you a question. What kind of just and caring God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, would allow infants to be raped to death on a near-daily basis? I'm sure you'll endeavor to explain it away with "free will," so the question then becomes: what kind of just and caring God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, would allow man to plot his own destiny, knowing that some would choose evil over good? No just and caring God would allow evil to proliferate, assuming He or She could do anything about it.
Either God is uncaring, or He / She has no authority. There is also a third possibility: there is no God.
But then you'd have nothing to whine about.
Do you know how to get a creationist off your doorstep?
Pay for the pizza.
This Just In!
""In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.""
""“Our results at the genetic level basically agree with what has been seen in skeletal data,” John M. Asara of Harvard said in a telephone interview. “There is more than a 90 percent probability that the grouping of T. rex with living birds is real.”""
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/science/25dino.html?hp
Excrementum cerebellum vincit.
Ok - so who made god?
The reptilian overlords. Duh.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
So this is actually a rather interesting article for the questions it raises rather than what it answers.
I'm hoping there are some biologists lurking in the crowd who can correct me if I go astray here, this isn't my field, but my understanding of this goes as follows -
The significance of this result is that it completely unexpected. Prior to observing this result one would expect the results of the experiment (10 lizards introduced to an island) to be one of the following:
- lizards that look like the original population
- lizards that look the introduced population
- lizards that look like a cross
Finding a forth option is just weird. I don't know if the results of the study are strong enough to preclude the interbreeding option, but I think they might, mitochondrial DNA is from only one gender of parent (female, right?).
From a numbers point, this seems unexpected, but not beyond explanation - if the population doubling time is a year, then there were over a billion lizards descended from the original 10. Does anyone know what the clutch size is for these sorts of lizards?
~~~
I think xians, in their narrow view fail to see the vast number of creation stories in the world. All are mythological. All are metaphorical. The myth the xians grew up hearing about involves a garden named Eden. Just because its the creation story that happened to be adopted by the Europeans and then follow them to America doesn't make it credible or true. Wikipedia has a nice page on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Stories. Actually, I find the judo/xian story one of the more laughable.
Wow, there's so much wonderful fodder here, it's difficult to hold back!
Evidence and BigGrudge, you are allowed to believe in whichever religion you choose, nobody is arguing that right. (They may be questioning the wisdom of that choice, but that's their right as well.) What those not of your beliefs would like you to understand is that, when your data comes from a religious text, it does NOT belong being taught in a science class. Please do not try to indoctrinate myself or anyone not of your beliefs using the public school system we all pay taxes to support.
Darwin's scientific observations revolved around living beings and the tendency to adapt to their environments. When those changes began to be passed down from parent to offspring, they became permanent. The members of the species with the new traits had evolved.
Nothing in Darwinian texts deals with the origins of the universe or of the Earth. Other scientists are responsible for those areas of study. Sorry to say, but you're blaming the wrong guy for the Big Bang theory. Note to xians: you have many, many people who have independently discovered evidence refuting your religious viewpoint. One guy, such as Darwin, could be covered up or ignored. How about archaeology? Or doesn't that count either. Genetics? No? Astronomy. Nope, can't have that one. Geology, then? Nuh uh, no way! How bout chemistry or physics? Darn! How is it that all of this scientific evidence could possibly be wrong?
The thing about science that makes it notably different from creation or ID is that it is rigorously tested. No scientist can say, "I have a theory, now teach it." ALL scientific theories are tested by many other researchers and if they don't hold up to independent testing, they are thrown out. Xians don't care about testing or proof of any kind. They don't care that what they are espousing is better presented in their churches. They scream, "WE'RE RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND WE AREN'T LISTENING TO YOU! LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA, LA, LA!"
Kibble @214, I never say this lightly but, LOL. Mind if I steal the line?
Telljunt Dezynr
Can says "Oh Hai"? Liek who maik teh littrboxz? Liek who putin niec smelly new littr? Sum catz, riet? Nawt jus anny catz, riet? Reeeeeel smarty catz, meeee-oooowww! Can has rubs bellie? Nawt jus anny catz, riet? Niec rubs can has Ceiling Cat. Ceiling Cat has niec littrboxz first anna clumpy littr. Tehn youse catz can has one. Youse skratch, youse sqwat, den youse pee, den youse cover. Niec skratch.
Oh Hai, lookey here! Nawt jus anny littr clump. Who can has maded this niec clumpy pee? Nawt jus anny catz, riet? Must be reeeeel smarty catz, riet? See? Lookey? Sniffz. Clumpz. Taht splanes it. Ceiling Cat teh Telljunt Dezynr uv reel niec clumpy pee. Ceiling Cat sez so. Srsly. K'Thnxbai.
[edit] Pascal's Wagar
Pascal wus clever kitteh hu wus laik: "I am not knoin if teh Ceiling Cat is reel." Oh noes! But Pascal was thinkin an thinkin, an he wus laik "If I is beleefin in teh Ceiling Cat, and he is reel, I will be gettin cheezburger. But if I has no beleefin in teh Ceiling Cat, and he is reel, I will be getting pwned. If there no Ceiling Cat, no matter anywai. I think I is beleefin in teh Ceiling Cat."
[edit] Morals
All teh kittehs are knowing wut is gud and wut is no gud. Cheezburgers be good, and pwnin ur eminies is no gud. How ar we knowing these tings if Ceiling Cat has not tuwd us?! Ceiling Cat tells all teh kittehs wut is gud and wut is no good, so we knows wut to do. In a pewfec wold doowin gud wud be ruwaded bai hapines butt dis aint alwaiys rite cos dis wun tiem ia wus leik "hai hows yu" an he wus leik "GTFO". Dis means dat der mus be moar leif to reewad us wit teh cheezburgerz we deeservs, an dat mus be Ceiling Cat.
and jebus no maks deh urfs. ceiling cat makm urfs. yu cun tel cuz jebus no kars bowt cheezburgrs. so ceiling cat is reel cuz he give all gud kittehs cheezburgr.
kaythnxbai.
[edit] Eeridoosibul Complexitee
Der iz sum fings dat iz so complicatd dat dey had tu be creeatd, cuz if yu taeks wun pees off, dey not wurks anymoar. Liek, der iz teh sofa, an it iz gud fr sleeping. But if yu taeks teh pillow off, it not gud anymoar! Cleerly, teh sofa cood not evolv. LOLZ. If yu finks teh sofa evolvd, yu iz stoopid. we wearz nawchoes kaythnxbai
On Making Light, the term for Mr. Evidence there would be "pinata": an amusing centerpiece you take turns beating on with a stick to make interesting objects fall out.
...
Evidence, some questions: How much attention do you pay to the fiber content of your clothing? Do you trim your beard? Ever eat pizza with sausage and pepperoni on it?
If these aren't issues in your life, why have you picked out one small section of the Pentateuch to read hyper-literally, and given short shrift to the rest?
There you are. Missed you.
Thanks.
Discovery: it's not always a wonderful thing.
This is kind of embarrassing.
I've been going through my mail, and it appears that not everyone has been reading Iva Biggrudge's comments as intentional comedy.
Have I miscalled that? Is it possible that he really is that stupid, and what we're hearing is his natural discourse?
I'm taking opinions.
#227 I don't know, maybe, but he did get upset by the xian thing...
If he's being comic, he sure does the angry xian thing well, because he sounds just like them!
It's kind of difficult sometimes to tell someones tone on a post, whether they are being tongue-in-cheek or snarky, or truly just idiotic; I can't tell if they are mentally speaking in a silly clown voice as they type.
I never underestimate the stupidity of anyone (after all, I see the same stupid face in the mirror every morning: "Oh, it's YOU again."))
Reading Iva Biggruge's comments again I STILL can't tell if he/she is joking or not. As someone else pointed out here, some of the stuff on display at the "Creation Museum" doesn't need a punchline attached to get laughs. I'll admit some of his anti-catholic stuff is pretty over-the-top, and sure seems like a joke, but then I always got laughs out of Jack Chick comics and I'm sure those are dead-serious.
If you are trying to consider whether Iva broke a rule of posting here (hateful speech, i.e. "troll"), it's not my call, but I'd err on the side of caution and let his post stand as is without the disemvowelling (although that might set a bad precedent).
At the very least I appreciate the "Church of Darwin" concept . . . and to think all this time I've been praying to Jimi Hendrix.
Teresa,
Poe's law. It's impossible to distinguish the parody from the real thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Interesting: Iva Biggruge provides a link to the "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" article at Scientific American (which pretty thoroughly trounces all creationist arguments). This leads me to believe his posts are humor.
But then I read his diatribes at that link, and it's more of the same Christian-anti-Darwin-paranoia-conspiracy-theory-weirdness.
Pages and pages of posts, all of which stink of willful ignorance and creationist talking-points.
Now I suspect he believes all the stuff he posts.
"I ain't no joke." --Rakim Allah
++++++++++++++++++++++++
First of all, thank you all for answering the questions I raised about the lizards in the article talked about. [See I appreciate sarcasm and use it too. ;0)]
I noticed when I talk about lizards you guys want to talk about God. I thought the general cry was lets talk about the subject at hand and now you guys avoid it?
I have read quotes attesting to the "mountains of evidence" and "all the science" and such but I am simple minded, as many of you have noted, so could one of you give me the one thing that absolutely proved to you that evolution was rock solid? One thing that I could search with you to see how convincing the solid evidence is? I can't swallow the whole elephant please give me a small bite to chew on.
Sarcasm alert!
"What kind of just and caring God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, would allow infants to be raped to death on a near-daily basis?"
Natural selection? Survival of the fittest? Preservation of the race? Removing the competition for food? Blind chance? Animal instinct form our animal ancestors? Chaos? No reason, we just die and go into a hole in the ground? Life is over and thats it?
Did I miss any of the answers you cling too?
The Bible says its because men are sinful, evil, and depraved. We have violated Gods laws and it shows itself in ugly ways. I wish God would stop those law breakers but wait. That would mean He would have to stop us all,including me, right here, right now. Because we all violate Gods law daily. I am thankful for the long suffering of God and I trust in His justice. None of it (law breaking) goes unseen and will be justly rewarded. Do as I have done. Repent and ask Jesus to save you today friends.
Jake0748, feel free to use that joke just as much as you want, but I warn you that it's very old, especially among musicians, and it's usually, "Do you know how to get a bass player off your doorstep?"
Musicians will see the similarity between bass players and creationists right away. (Bass players wont'.)
Evidence, I see you've ignored my question. Until now, you've been the one who's wanted to force discussions of religion on this thread. Now that you have someone else talking about it, you draw back.
Could it be that you don't actually care about Creationism, ID, or Biblical literalism? Are you just another troll who's discovered a subject he can use to commandeer an amount of attention he could never attract on his own?
Ill Lich @231, I suppose I ought to disemvowel Iva Biggrudge's comments, but they're such perfect examples of that style of bad rhetoric and bad thinking that I'm tempted to keep them.
Maybe we could donate them to the Stupidity Project?
IJWTS that I, too, literally can't tell if "Iva Biggrudge" is a parody or not. And when I say "literally," I mean it.
Jake the Snake (and other scientists): I don't think the Creationism argument can go much further. If you'd like, I can give this thread another hour or two then start deleting everything that isn't sober science.
@ Evidence:
"Did I miss any of the answers you cling too?"
No, but you missed the spelling of the word "to." Jesus, I swear. If you can't discern between the two, I'm threw with yew.
Takeshi thank you for your kind correction.
Teresa/Moderator
I will reread yours post and do my best to answer.
I was not forcing religion, I am pointing towards Creationism.
Evidence: Of course you were forcing religion. You've been utterly obnoxious and self-centered about it, too. I doubt you've convinced a single skeptic, but I'm certain that thousands of readers now have a poorer opinion of Christianity as a result of witnessing your performance here.
#232 Evidence:
"...I am simple minded, as many of you have noted, so could one of you give me the one thing that absolutely proved to you that evolution was rock solid?"
Hey, I'm not 100% sure of anything: my shoe size, my height, what time it is, whether or not I enjoy the taste of V-8 juice, etc.
Seems to me, if Vegas were offering odds on evolution being closer to the truth than the Bible story of creation, the sure money would be on evolution (of course, the odds on the creation myth would pay out far higher if you won.)
I'm sure you have reasons you believe the Bible is the absolute truth, we probably don't need to hear them though. I imagine parts of the Bible are true, and a good amount of it is either completely made up, totally misinterpreted, the writer's opinion presented as fact, or very obscured through years of oral tradition and bad translations. I can't put much faith in a book that contradicts itself so blatantly (do I "turn the other cheek" or take "an eye for an eye"?) The creation myth to me seems every bit as fanciful as telling children "the stork brought them."
Ultimately if I look at everything science has produced, versus everything religion has produced, science wins by a landslide. Religion promises eternal life, great! -- but you won't know if it's true until you die (it's like being on a game show, and the host offers for you to trade all the prizes you've already won for "whatever is in this box"-- no thanks.)
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Corinthians 1, 13:11
Teresa/Moderator
You asked questions about the fiber content of my clothes, If I trim my beard, and my Pizza preferences.
First I am a Christian and not Jewish. The laws you are questioning me about were addressed to the nation Israel for a particular time and place but in essence I do hold to them, here is how.
I don't wear a Slipknot or Marilyn Manson T-shirts. The mixing of fabrics was something people in their day did as acts of worship to pagan gods.
Same with the beard deal and mixing their foods. God wanted them to be set apart a peculiar people, same for me today. (Let the Peculiar jokes begin!) I am to be different so were they.
I purposely said I read the Bible plainly not literally. If the Bible plainly is poetry, descriptive or uses modes of speech (Sun setting-raining cats and dog etc.) I take it for what the author intended.
I believe Jesus is God and He specifically mentioned- Adam and Eve, Noah, Sodom and Gomorra, Jonah and 6 day Creation.
He would know so I believe Him.
Now He encourages us to study His creation. See how it runs like a finely tuned clock. Admire the eco system He put in place the beauty in that is here for our pleasure and His goodness. That we have a Moon at just the right distance to be the same size as the Sun so that eclipses are possible and we are able to study the corona. Also that our shadow is the same size as the Moon so we have the phases to mark time with. What are the chances of that just happening?
We should marvel at the fact that our solar system is where it is in the Universe so that we can study the Universe. What if we had stars so close we couldn't see out to observe? I am glad He put Saturn and Jupiter where He did. They act as shields for our Earth and draw in asteroids that would harm us and the Moon is a good last defense. I thank Him and marvel at His works.
What advances could be made if we looked for design in the universe?
Evidence @251: That isn't how the phases of the moon work.
Evidence @251: That isn't how the phases of the moon work.
Thats not the Earths shadow on the Moon?
Yes I remember reading in the bible where Moses said that Jupiter and Saturn are there to protect us from asteroids, and he was right too, judging by the size of that crater hole down in the Yucatan, which is obviously a snare of Satan.
You know, Snare of Satan would be a pretty cool band name. But it would put attention on the drummer, when in fact it belongs on the guitar player.
(As we read in the Book of Clapton.)
Name-calling is fun. Group dynamics rule number 7: Norming behaviors revert to intimidation tactics when logic and reason seem to be of little use.
"Thats not the Earths shadow on the Moon?"
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh boy.
Evidence 243: No, it isn't. When the Earth's shadow is cast on the Moon, that's a Lunar eclipse, not the Moon changing phases.
A Lunar eclipse can happen only at the full Moon, because that's the only time the Sun and Moon are on opposite sides of the Earth. For a related reason, a Solar eclipse can only happen at the dark ("new") Moon, because that's the only time the Moon gets between the Earth and the Sun.
All other phases have the Moon's bright and dark parts showing partially. Note that the side toward the Sun is always lit.
The Moon doesn't orbit the Earth in the plane of the ecliptic (which is called that for a reason) or every full Moon would have a Lunar eclipse, and every dark Moon would have a Solar eclipse.
Hope this helps.
@247:
I nominate XOPHER for the Boing Boing Commenter Patience and Restraint Award.
To: Evidence
Re: Lizards (uncooked)
I know you keep saying that the lizards didn't evolve, they just grew, or adapted to the environment. Perhaps in this case you are right-- we won't know until they do the DNA tests.
But, from what information we've currently got, it is extremely likely that they did evolve.
Before Darwin, Lamarck came up with a similar theory of evolution, except he believed that acquired traits were heritable. His theory was that if a short-necked giraffe wants to eat leaves from a tall tree, it will keep trying to get them and perhaps stretch its neck from this constant exercise*, and then, when it breeds, its offspring will have longer necks than usual because of this.
*Never mind that it couldn't significantly lengthen its neck in this manner anyway.
Lamarck was proven false by experiments like the one where they cut the tails off mice and bred them, to see if their offspring would be tailless. They had tails, of course, because it is in their genes to have tails, and if someone cuts off the tail the genes will not change to reflect that. The genes will, however, differ from parent to offspring if there is a mistake in the DNA transcription, and that is how mutations and variations happen.
If the first Italian wall lizards on the island had simply grown, or changed their eating patterns, and nothing else, then their offspring would be no different biologically from regular Italian wall lizards elsewhere.
I doubt that this will change your mind all of a sudden, but now do you at least understand what evolution is and is not?
Also-- you said:
"developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers" I suspect that they had these valves and now these same valves are bigger by use.
Well, I suspect that would have been the first thing the scientists would have suspected too, and checked to see if they had had them in the first place. "Developed" != "enlarged". "Developed" means they grew new ones over subsequent generations. You can't dismiss an argument by saying "I suspect that's not true" but not offering any real proof.
Wow, the numbering is really out of order. There's been knife work here.
Maybe we could donate them to the Stupidity Project?
BB could have a Wall of Shame. Of course it would be kind of like the suicide by hydrogen sulfide dilemma. Would it help commenters to avoid bad behavior or just be a recipe book for trolls?
Iva,
Would this be a good time to mention that some of my roommates from the drag queen collective in the 70s were founders of NAMBLA?
I think Iva really believes what s/he is posting. Parody would be funny, and one thing Iva utterly lacks is humor, even of the laugh-at kind. Also, a parodist wouldn't (probably) mix homophobia and anti-Catholic bigotry into the posts.
I suppose Iva could be a hoax, but that's not the same thing as parody. But it doesn't really matter; on the internet, someone who does a perfect imitation of a troll IS a troll, and what the person hirself actually believes on the topic under discussion is irrelevant to that analysis.
But I don't think Iva's a hoax either. I think s/he's a deadly serious wacko, homeschooled by wackos in wackoness.
RossInDetroit 248: Thanks! (I don't think I'm patient and restrained overall, actually, though I strive to be.)
meanwhile...far off in deep space.. a trillion tons of ice spins and drifts towards its inexorable rendezvous with a band of quarrelsome apes.....
xopher
Thanks for the real dialogue. I appreciate your patience. You could call me a name. laugh (HA ha ha HA) and then avoid any topic mentioned, so I thank you.
The Lunar eclipse also goes with my point. Our shadow is the perfect size. The trifecta Earth, Moon and Sun all appear to be same size for these events to occur. What are the chances of this happening? Any other planet in our solar system able to do this?
"All other phases have the Moon's bright and dark parts showing partially. Note that the side toward the Sun is always lit."
Honest question
What is keeping the other part of the moon from being lit?
Evidence @254: The fact that there's nothing but the Sun to light it.
Also, our shadow on the moon is not a perfect fit.
Evidence, Nelson has it right. Half the Moon is always lit by the sun (except during a Lunar eclipse). As the Moon orbits the Earth, the side that's always turned toward us goes from lit, to partially lit, to all dark, to partially lit, etc. The part that isn't lit isn't because it's in Lunar night (which is also a Lunar month). So, just as night on Earth is caused by the Earth's own shadow, the darkness on the unlit side of the Moon is caused by the Moon's own shadow.
The Moon is, in fact, the perfect size to fit in front of the Sun given their respective distances from the Earth. However, the Earth's shadow is much, much bigger than the Moon; that's why totality of a Solar eclipse is always brief, whereas totality of a Lunar eclipse can last quite a while.
it's turtles all the way down, my good man
Evidence - Re: the moon; try shining a flashlight on a basketball in a dark room if you want a visual. Make the flashlight and ball stationary and walk around them - you will see an equivalent of the phases of the moon.
Re: the "developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers" I suspect that they had these valves and now these same valves are bigger by use."
what I garner from the article (without having access to the researchers' information, I can't be sure*) is that the muscles at the joint between the two intestines altered over time to become valves; they didn't just spontaneously appear. The small intestine is muscular whereas the large intestine is not. The join between them is usually a circular muscle that aids fecal matter in passing from one intestine to the next - so you're part right in saying that they were there, but not in the form that they are now; which is the point.
Evolution is not a spontaneous creation of something that wasn't there previously, it's a selection over time for traits that are advantageous.
The first generation of lizards from Pod Kopiste didn't have the cecal valve. However, the individuals who had stronger cecal muscles were able to retain food longer and thus get more nutrients out of it which gave them a higher survival and reproduction rate - encouraging the continuance of the trend for stronger cecal muscles.
If you were to take these lizards back to Pod Kopiste, the valves may or may not remain in their systems. Depending on the availability of their current diet, the valves could remain indefinitely and these lizards would stay distinct from the lizards that are on Pod Kopiste and would probably develop new adaptations over time as they change to fit a new niche. If they were to revert back to the Pod Kopiste diet, they'd likely interbreed with those lizards and the cecal valves could disappear over time, because they're an unnecessary adaptation.
*I studied mammals, not herps, so I could be completely wrong about their digestive system.
JaketheSnake - a fourth option would be two distinct lizard populations that utilize difference niches.
Takuan - everyone knows that A'Tuin is swimming through space, not standing on the back of other turtles.
Evidence,
The Moon might look like a perfect fit in a solar eclipse now. But that won't always be the case since the Moon moves further from the Earth at a rate of about 4cm per year.
'm not an astronomer but you can look this up readily. Nasa even put a mirror there to measure the rate at which it's moving away. They point a laser at it.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
@ Evidence:
"See how it runs like a finely tuned clock."
Yes, all those rapes and murders every day are proof of God's greatness and limitless power. All those planets that collide, all the animals extincted by giant asteroids, all those countless imperfections in nature's "design," beginning with the fact that I have organs that I don't even need!
Go God!
So.... God as seen by Tom of Finland. Very NSFW.
Jumala!
@262 Antinous,
NSFLife, more like.
so, ah ,would that be ....Florida?
Yeah, I'm filth.
Antinous @262: The, ah, point of entry there, that's not Chicxulub, is it?
Speaking of which, young lady, you're underage. Why are you following links that are labeled NSFW? You're supposed to remain completely innocent of all knowledge of the existence of sex, sexuality, sexual orientation and sexual organs until your next birthday. Oh, never mind. I just looked it up. The age of consent in Texas is 17. It's all good.
come now, many have overcome their Floridian roots, there is no need for shame. Much.
If Mark hadn't invoked Ben Stein in the title, do you think that this post would have gotten more than ten comments?
naw, he was born in Washington DC
@Evidence
RE: The earth, moon, sun are all the perfect size.
Some other commenters have taken a stab, but I thought I'd go into some more depth, in the hopes that you are sincerely interested in learning more.
1. They aren't exactly the right size. Both the earth and the moon have slightly elliptical orbits. Depending on the time of year and the position of the moon in its orbit, the relative sizes of the disks of the sun and the moon can vary quite a bit. See: 'annular eclipse'.
2. All we're talking about here is that the tip of the umbra of one body briefly intersects the surface of another body once in a while. That's probably rare, but not astonishing. There're many, many combinations of star size, distance, and planet sizes that can make it work. Just in our solar system, Phobos would cover more than half the sun's disk. That's pretty close.
3. The idea that this convergence is uniquely useful to astronomers. Well, even on Earth, total eclipses happen only once or twice a decade, for a few short minutes or hours, in one or two remote regions of the world. That's not very convenient. That aside, what makes you think eclipses are the only phenomenon that would provide useful and interesting observations? Having a bevy of smaller moons would probably be just as interesting. Or even a ring. And what kind of weird sights could we see if we weren't just a planet, but also the satellite of something like a ringed gas giant?
(Anyway, a truly benevolent astronomer's god would've provided more than a conveniently sized moon. Why not a huge equatorial mountain range that pokes a little way above the atmosphere? Or a 'natural' space elevator?)
Xopher @251
"on the internet, someone who does a perfect imitation of a troll IS a troll, and what the person hirself actually believes on the topic under discussion is irrelevant to that analysis."
Vonnegut's book Mother Night is (among other things) an extended exploration of this (although in that case its Nazis not trolls).
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be." - Vonnegut's Mother Night
RE: The earth, moon, sun are all the perfect size and/or distance from each other.
This is basically circular reasoning. If we had two moons they would be saying how perfect it was that we had two moons. Similarly, the human body, or the bodies of other animals are not necessarily "perfect"-- there are plenty of physiological quirks that point straight to accidental evolution rather than wise design: giraffes have nerves that travel the entire length of their neck, from the brain down to the torso, loop around a bone, and then back up the neck to the head; how is this an intelligent design? But of course, you can't question the designer-- if God made it, it must be perfect-- circular reasoning again.
(I apologize for continuing to post on this. I promised I would stop arguing with EVIDENCE, but I have become fixated. I have better things to do tonight, and instead I am arguing with someone who clearly does not understand evolution, either by choice or ignorance.)
I have become fixated.
Obviously God's plan for you. Embrace it.
Ben 273: Remember the story of the guy whose penis saved his soul? He was masquerading as a Nazi, and the only thing that saved him was the fact that he was circumcised, so that if any of the real Nazis saw his dick he would be revealed as a Jew and killed. That kept him from entirely becoming what he was pretending to be.
Ill Lich: the reasoning isn't as circular as you think. The marvel is that the size and distance from Earth of the Moon is such that it matches the apparent size of the Sun so closely. From time to time this allows us to see the corona of the Sun clearly. It really is a fantastic coincidence, especially since our Moon isn't really a moon (it's the junior member of a dual-planet system; true if it were a true moon it would be much closer to Earth, and life as we know it would be impossible).
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be." -
this is true. This is why I pretend to be human.
@ Evidence
You asked what, above all else, convinced me that evolution would be the right answer, and silly as this may be, I'd probably say insects. From a human perspective on the world, bugs look to be inconsequential and are frequently quite annoying, but they serve a variety of genuine purposes. If this world was put here specifically for man, why would a creator fill the world with these annoying pests? Wouldn't he have found a way to make it all work without putting these annoying creatures on it?
You are appreciative of the beauty of this world. I suspect, however, that if this world had say, a lavender sky and two moons you would find that beautiful, too. We all would.
One of the problems I have with people who believe that this was all put her by a god for our use is that many of them fail to distinguish between use and abuse. It's wonderful that we've learned many ways of using oil, but it's abuse when we rape the planet to get it, then allow plastic bags to litter nature, fill up trash dumps, and float around in the oceans (see Great Pacific Garbage Patch here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch)
I have what I'll call Xopher's Fork. Here it is.
Do you believe that shared genes are evidence of shared ancestry?
IF NOT: You don't believe that DNA testing can determine the paternity of a child, for example. Do you really deny that?
IF SO: Then you believe that chimpanzees and humans have common ancestry, because their genomes are largely identical. In fact, on average a human male shares more genes with a chimpanzee male than with a human female.
I suppose it's possible to believe that God just used similar genes to build humans and chimpanzees, but then you still have the problem...God could have used similar genes to make the baby your wife just had as to make the postman, who is not the same race as you or your wife. So she hasn't been unfaithful! God is just testing you.
The basic problem creos* have is logic. They don't understand either deduction (as above) or induction (anything that happens a little bit over a short period of time probably happens a lot over a very long period of time). Believing in "microevolution" but not "macroevolution" is not only silly, it's prideful (that's Christian talk for 'hubristic', for those of you following along at home). They think God can only do things on a scale that's easy for THEM to grasp, or within the narrow framework of their lives.
Of course, lots and lots of "microevolution" adds up to "macroevolution," and whether you believe God is doing that or, as I do, that natura sola sufficit, there's no logical leap involved.
*I got this nickname from a commenter on Making Light. I like it.
So the animals have changed over time... not sure that was ever a question.
The findings relayed in this article, if anything, undermine Darwinism. If these creatures are evolving that quickly, then there must be some other mechanism operating then natural selection, because there haven't been enough generations for this level of mutation to arise.
So the task is not merely to recognize change, but to explain the mechanism behind it.
@xopher & Ill lich
Thank you very much for clearing up my misuse and humbly thank you for your kindness and patience in regards to the Moons phases.
I wish I could comment on all posts and I apologize for not being able too but life keeps interfering with commenting. I am not avoiding I would truly love to round table with all of you on every point. A lot of insightful stuff and good questions and some weirdness that I guess I miss the humor on.
@sophieschoice
“I suspect, however, that if this world had say, a lavender sky and two moons you would find that beautiful, too. We all would.”
You are right but think about this and one of you math whizzes figure the odds of this occurring.
We evolve on a planet with food we can eat and tastes good, we make an eye that can see in an atmosphere where it is possible to see. We can breath the air, drink the water, it is the right temperature on and on.
If we landed on Mars and found a tent with these same conditions we would look for the Being that had set up the tent so perfectly for us. But when it is placed on a global, no universal scale, and we say it just happened?
The Universe is not perfect because of mans sin and longs to be restored. Sin brought in death and disease.
Rom 8:22 “ the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together.”
Does science contradict itself?
Entropy is a known science. In simple terms the way I understand it it says . The universe is dying of heat loss and things left to themselves run down. (Correct me if this is wrong.)
This rule/Law of entropy is in place.
Yet evolutions runs counter to this. Does not evolution say "Things left to themselves gain information and grow in complexity"?
How do you justify the two?
The Bible agrees with this known Law of entropy.
Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
The Moon slips away, the Earths rotation slows down, stars burn out.
Explane.
@SophiesChoice
Thank you for being the only one to answer my question. Mountains of evidence must be smaller than a mole hill.
Insects. You are right they are useful but annoying.
I believe God made the world perfect. Man sinned and the good systems have all broken down.
Before sin there was no death and I would says no annoying insects. Not that they weren’t there, He created them on day 6 (the Bible calls them creeping things) but that they wouldn’t have been annoying.
God uses them for examples for us in the Bible.
Pro 6:6-8 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, [and] gathereth her food in the harvest.
I know of people who have become Christians because of the complexity found in the insect world.
So your dislike of bugs is the most compelling argument that drove you into the arms of evolution?
Thanks again for opening up.
@Evidence 261,
We evolve on a planet with food we can eat and tastes good, we make an eye that can see in an atmosphere where it is possible to see. We can breath the air, drink the water, it is the right temperature on and on.
Precisely the point. We evolve to fit the circumstances. If this atmosphere wasn't conducive to sight, we would have evolved like grubs. Blind, but with systems in place to feel vibrations.
@Tenn
"We evolve to fit the circumstances"
When is the next meeting on what we should evolve next?
I put in for flight.
Quotes from vorpalsword 249
“I know you keep saying that the lizards didn't evolve, they just grew, or adapted to the environment. Perhaps in this case you are right-- we won't know until they do the DNA tests.”
Lamarck experiments“stretch its neck from this constant exercise”
“they cut the tails off mice and bred them, to see if their offspring would be tailless”
“The genes will, however, differ from parent to offspring if there is a mistake in the DNA transcription, and that is how mutations and variations happen.”
“I doubt that this will change your mind all of a sudden, but now do you at least understand what evolution is and is not?”
Yes this is what I want and all of you should want too. DNA that shows new information not bigger headed lizards with stronger jaws. This sounds like the Lamarck bait and switch. Say one thing while meaning another. Like showing all the proof for micro evolution and then saying it must (without evidence) add up to macro evolution that is a leap of faith. Bait and switch. One is not the other, that why they have different names.
My favorite book outside the Bible is Carl Sagan's "Contact". Because at the end he, through the main character, says that it is his faith he can't prove it. Thats honesty.
“You can't dismiss an argument by saying "I suspect that's not true" but not offering any real proof.”
As you said “We won't know until they do the DNA tests”.
You all have faith the DNA will have new information I believe it will not (odds are in my favor) and chances are we will never hear any of the follow up testing at least not on BoingBoing it will be buried at the end of some journal no one will read.
Same thing over and over.
Big head lines at what we found or know and pepper the article with evolutions words of faith, maybe, we suppose, we think, could be, possibly, could have been, our theory is and might be. (To name a few). Then when science is done and things are known it falls in to obscurity. (Think Mars rock).
@Tenn
"We evolve to fit the circumstances"
When is the next meeting on what we should evolve next?
I put in for flight.
I'm sorry, I don't see how flight is necessary for our circumstances. Care to explain? Flight would consume more resources in trade for few advantages- it would overall consume more energy than we could gain. The ground has all we need, so there is no impetus for change.
Sorry about my italics codes on the other. HTML-fu is fail. I'm sure everyone can discern who said what.
@TENN #285
I forgot to put up my sarcasm alert.
My point is who is in charge of what we need and when we get it?
Do we stretch our necks until we grow? Thats not evolution (see earlier posts). \
Small incremental changes in our DNA until we have what we need?
Who decides what we need?
Who decides what changes need to be made to get to that point?
Where are all the transitional fossils showing these changes proving that this is good science and how things are done?
shit happens
@TENN #285
I forgot to put up my sarcasm alert.
My point is who is in charge of what we need and when we get it?
Do we stretch our necks until we grow? Thats not evolution (see earlier posts). \
Small incremental changes in our DNA until we have what we need?
Who decides what we need?
Who decides what changes need to be made to get to that point?
Where are all the transitional fossils showing these changes proving that this is good science and how things are done?
Nobody. That's the point.
Whatever animals have features conducive to survival in their environment survive. The 'who' is circumstance.
Here they are!
Human transitional fossils
Why isn't there a flowchart?
More not so human to human skulls
EVIDENCE:
You know, all of the things you bring up are answered on the Scientific American website under the title "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", it's been mentioned in the comments here already a few times (see #153 IVA BIGGRUDGE's comment for the link).
Regarding entropy-- like a lot of other things you bring up about evolution, it seems you don't understand entropy either, this is answered in the Scientific American article also. You really should read it and UNDERSTAND it before you argue your points, because you are making yourself look ignorant (I'm just saying. . . .)
Entropy takes over in a closed system, and the Earth is NOT a closed system as long as the sun is adding energy to our planet. If the sun suddenly stops, entropy will take over, and life will run down like a clock that needs to be wound, or a battery with no charge. If an exact replica of the early Earth (and I don't mean the Genesis version of early Earth, but rather as scientists see it), complete with moon and oceans, and pools of chemicals waiting to be turned into amino acids, were floating in space nowhere near the heat of a star, with no energy being added, and no thermal energy in the planet's core, there would be no chance of life appearing. At some point our sun WILL run out of fuel and burn out (it is like a battery with vast amounts of energy stored in it), and then entropy will take over; we are actually living on borrowed time, although science extrapolates many millions of years before we get to the end.
Think of it like this-- you are pedaling your bike, and I say to you "God must be making the bike move, because otherwise entropy would make you fall over" but of course you are adding energy to the bike by pedaling, as soon as you STOP pedaling, and are not adding energy, entropy (friction) makes the bike slow down and stop. You are like the sun, you can pedal and pedal, but at some point you will get too tired to keep it up and you will eventually stop; your store of energy is depleted. IF you were moving along on a level surface without pedaling, without a motor or wind at your back, without any energy being added to the bike at all, and without slowing down, then we can discuss god coming into play in the equation.
Or better yet, consider those mini-biospheres that you can buy or make (I believe there was a recent post here on boingboing about how to make one), usually water, a little air, sand, some plants, and prawns. It appears as a closed system (and indeed it is sealed-- you never have to physically add anything to it, not food nor water), but is is NOT a closed system-- it needs energy from the sun to feed the plants, which in turn feed the prawns. If you place it in a dark closet for a few weeks entropy takes over and everything dies (and I think even with the sun those biospheres eventually run down anyway after several years).
Do you get it now?
I swear I did that one right. I just checked the history and yep, my italic end is at the end of the post I quoted- NOT at the end of my name.
Anyone else having this problem with tags?
The italic tag only works for a block of text. If you hit enter to create an empty line, you have to do a new set of tags. I don't know why and, no, it's not normal.
Evidence, I'd really like to know what you have to say about my fork. (No, it's not a spork.)
@Xopher 293,
I propose 'Xophork'. I, at any rate, liked your fork and post. In fact, this entire conversation has cemented my atheism. Every time Evidence requests evidence, and the Boingers provide it, there is that much more reason not to be a creo. I used to be a microevolutionist, mercy me, but that was before I was well aware of the implications that belief stated (as you have clarified in your post.) The idea that bricks can be stacked to make a chimney, but not a house, is ridiculous.
Maybe you should have gone more generic and called it Xopher's Tool. I think that many of us would have looked it over very, very carefully.
EVIDENCE:
Unfortunately your constant references to "sin" don't help your arguments, as science has no way to test for sin.
In other words, matters of faith and matters of science do not mix. Your constant attempt at forcing them to fit is like mixing oil and water: shake that Italian dressing bottle all you want but in the end they separate out.
As I see it, the basic equation here is like this: IF the Bible is completely true, THEN evolution is a lie.
Seems fair enough, but even if you scientifically or archeologically prove one portion of the Bible, that does not prove the entire book, because the Bible did not magically appear in its current form all at once, but was compiled from various scriptures and accounts over centuries (Moses did not have a book of Revelation, let alone a book of Exodus to cite), so one part could be accurate, the others inaccurate.
You are apparently satisfied that the Bible is 100% accurate, and have removed the IF/THEN from the equation. Fine, but we cannot make that leap of faith, no matter how much you preach at us. I was raised Christian, but even as a small child I saw through the facade, everything was built on too many shaky assumptions and unquestioned traditions; that does not make me an evil person.
If I get on an airplane and the pilot tells me "God is my co-pilot" (and he's completely serious, there is no human co-pilot), I would request another flight with a human co-pilot, because if the main pilot falls ill, hoping God will land the plane is a real crap-shoot. If you want to take that flight, go ahead.
Antinous, now that I've been cut loose by my boyfriend, it's possible that a look at my tool may be available to you under the right circumstances. Just sayin'.
I just need to be reassured that Evidence wasn't your boyfriend.
No. And neither were any of the lizards on the island, Charles Darwin, or Tom Cruise.
Funnily enough, I did date an Italian lounge lizard. No evidence of evolution there.
But not a wall lizard, unless it was a real hole-in-the-wall kind of lounge!
*crickets chirp*
Thanks everyone, I'm here all week, tip your waitress.
Just to clarify a quick point which seems to have been misunderstood at a few points in the discussion: the introduced lizards did not interbreed with the original lizard population of the island.
Any changes between when the wall lizards were first introduced and when the scientists returned was due to either selection pressures or to the effects of a new diet.
I refuse to take it for granted that this is due to a change the genome. I do not see why it could not be due to it, but as of yet the possibility of the observed changes being due to change in diet has not been ruled out, at least not by the scientists writing the paper. I like a healthy amount of doubt served with my science, or with anything for that matter.
Although, I admit it is difficult to explain the new gut structure in terms of a simple change in diet (that hasn't stopped everyone from trying). I guess that's why I'd be more inclined towards the idea that there is a genotypical change accompanying the change observed in the wall lizards. But like I said, I'd like to have the proof of it before I start making any claims.
I'd like to think that boingboing will post a link to whichever obscure science journal carries the less sensational follow up article two years from now, although I must admit that would be asking a lot.
@TENN #289
Thanks for the links to the picture and the article.
More not so human to human skulls = I could take the population at the local Wal-mart at any given time, line them up from small to large and have more variation than these.
Why isn't there a flowchart?= From the article- The second reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found. After millions of years of death shouldn’t we all hit one when we dig in the yard?
Human transitional fossils = Lining things up does not make it true. Lining up a spoon then a spork and then a fork is that science? Would we not need DNA to show their relation to each other and that new information has been added?
#290 ill lich
Thanks for the descriptive post and illustrations.
You said
“it seems you don't understand entropy either”
“Entropy takes over in a closed system, and the Earth is NOT a closed system as long as the sun is adding energy to our planet”.
The Moon slips away and the Earth rotation still slows. The Sun that is adding energy and it destroys my shingles, bleaches and cracks cement, bakes our skin to cause cancer, it drys out and rots all fabrics just to name a few things.
Is there some other Law that covers this?
Also
“IF the Bible is completely true, THEN evolution is a lie.” The is what I believe. This still allows for micro evolution (science’s terms not mine) which is variation within a species or kind.
“You are apparently satisfied that the Bible is 100% accurate “
I am. I would gladly discuss this with you and others. You can examine it and see how valid it is. I am no Mormon so I am not talking about reading it and getting a burning assurance in your bosom. I am talking about the same tests applied to any book of antiquity. Christianity is a faith but not blind faith, it is reasonable or I would not believe it.
“everything was built on too many shaky assumptions and unquestioned traditions”
I apologize for any weak or false Christian who said not to question things. Truth fears no question. Truth endures.
Caution is wisdom. Examine, test and decide.
To throw out God is very bad science.
It is like the police saying find the killer but he can’t be a white man.
What if it is a white man?
All your searching will leave you empty handed with out answers because you limited the possibilities at the start.
What are all of you afraid of?
Is is us that are afraid, EVIDENCE, or you?
If evolution is true, then the Bible creation myth is untrue, and if one book of the Bible is untrue, how many others? And suddenly your reassuring cosmological security blanket is gone.
Yes, the unknown is very scary, especially the "great unknown" of death. We don't really know what happens when the lights go out; religion is a convenient way of making it more comfortable. We convince ourselves that if we follow some basic rules and say some incantations then everything will be alright and we will be rewarded at death; it's something to look forward to rather than be afraid.
I'm afraid of death too, EVIDENCE, but I won't stoop to believing in superstitions in order to make it more palatable.
After millions of years of death shouldn’t we all hit one when we dig in the yard?
I've known about how things are fossilized since I was a girl with books on dinosaurs bigger than her. The books, that is, not only the dinosaurs.
Fossilization only occurs under certain circumstances.
Which is why we don't find them everywhere.
Evidence, et al, I have been following this thread for (it seems like) weeks. But I've been reluctant to post anything because there are many others arguing on my side who are smarter and have better writing skillz than I do.
There seems to be one item that might bring the whole argument to a halt, and forgive me if its been mentioned already. -- If the fact that someone believes that the Bible is 100% literally true, word for word does not allow one to "believe" in evolution or give it any credibility at all, then why argue about evolution at all? I mean I personally would grant that the creation story in Genesis (if taken as literal truth) contradicts the theory of evolution, or anything like it.
So it seems to me that the argument should be about whether the Bible is literal truth or not. If it is, case closed, for you anyway, you won't convince others who don't believe that. If the Bible is more an allegory, metaphor, some kind of instruction book for life - well then all the more opportunity for us mortals to try and figure out how God really made the universe.
This is just my 2 cents worth and I put it to you in all humility and without malice toward anyone (in my better moments I AM capable of being without malice, really!). Again I apologize if it is poorly written. Cheers.
I've come to the conclusion it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist. Not having anything to reach out to means you have to focus on the self.
All in all, if God exists, and has an issue with me because I did not worship him- but made every effort to be a kind and moral person through Buddhist principles, then I'm just screwed and I totally accept that.
I have a moral obligation not to believe in God, because if I did move to Christianity or something else, it would be me trying to save my own ass in the afterlife. Which is dishonest.
Jake,
Modesty from people who are perfectly capable of expressing themselves is unnecessary. Don't sell yourself short, man! I can't express myself very well either but I pretend.
Anyway, Evidence argues this because the Christian faith demands searching out converts. Never mind that they won't convert anyone here with their diatribes; the point of Creationism is to make everyone believe the Bible's account, and for creationism to be taught in schools as opposed to evolution.
the point of Creationism is to make everyone believe the Bible's account, and for creationism to be taught in schools as opposed to evolution.
Isn't the point to reassert social control by sowing disinformation and re-establishing a system of social inequality which leaves straight, white, rich men at the top of the resource pyramid?
Tenn,
Thanks for the kind words, but I've been doing a lot of "posting something stupid before I got the joke", lately.
I don't necessarily agree with the thing about only believing in God to cover your own ass in the afterlife. To me it's a fundamental question in life, whether there is or isn't. I put myself in the firmly agnostic category. But whatever... if the argument is whether or not the Bible is literally true then why do we (I mean both sides), even argue about evolution? Neither fundies nor scientists ever have a chance of winning.
Evidence, you ask us to test the Bible as though it was completely foreign to us. The fact is, most if not all of us know something of the Bible; we've been exposed to it since childhood, and we have tested it for fact and accuracy, and found it wanting. We've tested it for internal consistency, and found it wanting. We've tested it as moral guidance, and some of us have found it wanting. Not all; some people are happy with the message in the Bible, and do not find it incompatible with their knowledge of the world, this science that you know so little of, and denigrate so in your obvious ignorance.
As you to us, we say to you, What are you afraid of? The answers are out here in the world for you to see, as countless others have seen before you. Take your nose out of that fusty old book, and look at the world. Look at the strata, look at the fossils, look at the shadows on the Moon. God gave you the capacity for reason, and he gave you a universe to work it on. Are you so contemptuous of God's gifts?
Entropy is a known science. In simple terms the way I understand it it says . The universe is dying of heat loss and things left to themselves run down. (Correct me if this is wrong.)
This is correct, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, the amount of energy unavailable for work, tends to increase. Eventually all matter will decay, even protons.
Living things however actually increase entropy more than natural systems do.
Yet evolutions runs counter to this. Does not evolution say "Things left to themselves gain information and grow in complexity"?
Evolution doesn't say anything of the sort. Please don't confuse the second law with evolution. Evolution's only claim is that "species arise through descent with modification by means of natural selection" nothing more. Evolution doesn't even make any claims regarding the origin of life, only the origin of species.
Life is able to take advantage of available energy and to make use of it to increase complexity. Plants take the energy of the sun in the form of photons and are able to capture that energy and convert it into sugar through photosynthesis.
Why? No one knows. Science doesn't answer ultimate why questions. It only answers how questions. How do species arise? Through natural selection. How did life appear on Earth? We don't know for sure but we do know the oldest living things found so far are cyanobacteria fossils 3.4 billion years old. People have developed theories to explain this and they fit in with what we already know but we aren't totally sure yet.
I could take the population at the local Wal-mart at any given time, line them up from small to large and have more variation than these.
No, one could not. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean no one else does. Anatomy is well known and taught in every college. The differences between the skulls on the left and those on the right in that illustration are quite profound.
After millions of years of death shouldn’t we all hit one when we dig in the yard?
No, fossils only form under special circumstances.
Lining things up does not make it true. Lining up a spoon then a spork and then a fork is that science?
Yes, that is science. Much of what scientists do is systematically categorizing and organizing things. Conducting experiments and building models to explain what we find are very important too. But you can't have a theory if you don't know what exists in the world. That means someone has to go out, collect specimens and study them.
Would we not need DNA to show their relation to each other and that new information has been added?
No, we do not. One would have to be profoundly ignorant to believe that eating utensils were living things that reproduced or evolved. We know that a T. Rex fossil is related to other dinosaur fossils because we know that lizards reproduce sexually. They do not just magically appear out of nothing. If you wish to believe in magic that's fine, just don't call it science and don't force it on me.
I've been doing a lot of "posting something stupid before I got the joke", lately.
I fail to see why you should be better behaved than anyone else. The rest of us are drunk, drugged, tired or stupid. Don't be so fancy.
Thank you Antinous, I am all four of those things. :)
So I fit right in.
Great posts.
I am not forcing anything on anyone I thought we were debating, asking question and searching for answers.
It is hard for both sides not to paint with broad brushes.
I am off for worship on Sunday I look forward to continuing with you all on Monday.
Antinous: Would this be a good time to mention that some of my roommates from the drag queen collective in the 70s were founders of NAMBLA?
I really hope that you're kidding - it's like someone casually mentioning they were in little league with Hitler. (and no, Iva's already thoroughly Godwinized this thread, so I'm cool)
Why am I debating EVIDENCE again? I spent time trying to explain entropy to him (admittedly long-winded and maybe not perfect), and he replies with a bunch of disjointed sentences about how the sun "destroys my shingles" and "bakes our skin to cause cancer"--???!! Is he saying the sun is the cause of entropy?!!
wow.
It's like trying to explain baseball to a European: "No, that wasn't a strike. Well, yes, he struck the ball, but that's called a hit in this case. Yes, he hit the ball that time, but because he fouled it off. . . errr. . . hit it out of bounds off to the side, that makes it a strike. No that time it wasn't a strike. . . yes, I know he fouled it off, but that only counts as a strike the first two times he does it. . . oh, and THAT was a dropped 3rd strike, ya see, well . . . ." etc.
But how can I expect a creationist to understand science when they get all their info from other creationists hell-bent on debunking science and then calling that "the real science?"
You know, EVIDENCE, you might want to look into inventing a perpetual-motion device; something like that could solve all our energy needs and make you very very rich.
I really hope that you're kidding
Nope, dead serious. From the political side, it started with an article in Fag Rag called Buggering Babies as an Act of Revolution. Some of the Fag Raggers, of whom several lived in my collective (Fort Hill Faggots for Freedom) were in on it from the beginning. My associates were, as far as I know, not pedophiles. It was originally meant to be a political statement on how our society both disempowers children and desexualizes/infantilizes everybody. Plus it was a response to politically motivated police repression of gays in general. I think that the pedophiles overwhelmed the politicos pretty early on.
ill lich - I think he is angling for a blind watch maker argument, it seems to be hovering in the back there. Though I can't think of any reason to continue, except out of shear boredom.
I don't paint with broad brushes, I do silver point. (Ok, not that much any more but I did try it for a while.)
at times, it is useful to pose rhetorical questions and arguments with an imaginary opponent to order one's own thoughts and test one's own knowledge. The best self-test of assumed understanding is to be able to successfully teach it to a child - figurative and literal.
@Antinous 321,
... Duuuuuuuuuuude.
@Jake0478 311,
What Ant said. I totally missed sarcasm and a Wolverine reference the other day and blew my top at somebody who I thought was criticizing Mister Frauenfelder for being a comics geek. When you're a fool, you just gotta brush your shoulders off and try again!
And Ant, I'm not drunk or drugged or tired... uh oh.
Hey Tenn, I said I had posted stupid comments... not that I had dandruff. ;)
Jake- I see your point about stupid comments. Feel free to disemvowel yourself. Or unplug your keyboard. Either will spare us! :D
Evidence @241:
Where in the Bible does it specify that? I'll take an answer from the Old Testament or the New Testament. Either's fine. All I ask is that the passage you cite say that as flatly and literally as you read Genesis.I know you've claimed you read the Bible "plainly" rather than "literally". You're not fooling anyone. The term for that style of reading is "literal".
So, I don't want any of that "what this passage means metaphorically" business, or "what this meant in the context of the times," or any of those other non-simple reading protocols you reject in your interpretation of Genesis.
And if you insist that you must be allowed to read some parts of the Bible literally (or "plainly"; I can nail you either way), and give other parts a more complex and interpretive reading, I'm going to have to ask you where the Bible says you're allowed to do that, and where it spells out which books do and do not have to be given a literal reading.
If the Bible doesn't specify that, then the decision to read some books via one set of reading protocols, and other books via another, was made by humans.
Hold it right there. "But in essence" isn't good enough. You don't allow anyone else to say what Genesis means "in essence"; you insist on a literal (or "plain": same thing) interpretation of it. That hardly leaves you on solid ground when you invoke an "in essence" interpretation of any other portion of the Bible.Tch! Where in the Bible does it say any of that? By my recollection it's a fairly clear and direct command: thou shalt not mix fibers, period, not "thou shalt not mix fibers until the Amorites and Elamites and Canaanites and Hurrians and Assyrians and Phoenicians and what-not cease to be an issue."For that matter, where does it say that you're allowed to set aside any prohibitory commandments on the grounds that the thing prohibited was a common practice among the neighbors of the ancient Israelites?
I'll save you a hunt through your concordance: the Bible doesn't say that. The doctrine you're citing is the product of a complex and not entirely literal tradition of Biblical interpretation. Worse, some of the scholarship you're invoking is scientific, not exegetic. You haven't allowed science to have a legitimate place in the interpretation of Genesis. Why is it then legitimate to use it as an excuse to get out of obeying one of God's clearer commands?
Nope. All it says is that Jews are to be a peculiar people. If we read the Bible using the same protocols you insist on using in your reading of Genesis, there is exactly zero scriptural basis for your belief that you're supposed to be different in a different way.I purposely reply that I was not born yesterday, and am not in the habit of taking wooden nickels.Hogwash. That is precisely what you aren't doing. If you want to argue that some books in the Old Testament are meant to be read literally and others are not, you might be able to argue for reading (say) Chronicles literally; but Genesis emphatically does not belong in that bin. I'm not talking about its content. I'm talking about its style -- the same thing you claim you're taking your cues from.Every culture has much-retold traditional tales. They're sonorous and simplified and can pack a real wallop. The form is so recognizable that the moment we first hear a Joss Whedon character intone, "Into each generation a slayer is born -- one girl in the world with the power to stop the forces of evil," we know that we're listening to something old and important and much-retold.
It's every bit as obvious that Genesis is one of those traditional tales as it is that the Song of Solomon is poetry. It should thus be read like a traditional tale: slowly, respectfully, with our feelers set to pick up its implications; but not literally.
Like ballads, much-retold traditional stories achieve their compression by leaving stuff out. We give them our trust that what was left out wasn't essential to the story, and by implication acknowledge that stuff has been left out: it's a tale, not a roadmap or a blueprint.
In the case of Genesis, it's two traditional tales, not one. It doesn't take a genius to notice that the first two chapters or Genesis don't match up. I spotted that myself when I was a little kid stuck in long church services, with nothing to read but scripture and hymnal: Genesis 1, animals are created before man. Genesis 2, man is created before the animals.
So how did the author intend for that to be taken? Not literally; that much is clear. Rather, we're to understand, as we do with all traditional tales, that it's the story that's important. The same is evident in Genesis 4:16-17, where we go straight from Cain, Abel, and the first murder, to Cain's wife in his exile in the land of Nod giving birth to his son Enoch, and Cain building a city.
Does this apparent impossibility "disprove" Genesis? It does not. What it says is that if you're reading Genesis so literally that the sudden appearance of Cain's wife seems impossible, then you're reading the story wrong.
Which you are, O Evidence. Your own points of doctrine come from readings of the Bible that are far less simple than the reading protocols you insist on applying to Genesis. You and yours are putting all your effort into exactly those parts of the tale that the original teller deprecated. What do you want -- a No-Prize from the Almighty?
Never claim that that misreading has anything to do with God's will. The decision to hold to a dead-literal interpretation of Genesis was an arbitrary one, made by human beings. I don't mean to impute motives, but arguing about Creation has always been a good way for an ambitious preacher to get attention from the press. It's also a fine intake device for gathering in people who care more about knowing the Right Answer to any question than they care about whether yon Right Answer is actually true.
I'm sorry your faith doesn't extend far enough to encompass the full magnitude of a God that could create a universe that contains the Burgess Shale, the nine orders of trilobytes, the spectacular Pleistocene megafauna (whose remains are even now popping out of the melting permafrost), or just a nice hunk of agatized stromatolite to use as a paperweight.
I don't understand it myself. If you're going to put this much effort into believing strange things, why not concentrate instead on believing that God is omnipotent, does not lie, and is far larger and stranger than could ever fit into a brief tribal legend misread as an instruction manual?
Welcome back. How did the whispering go?
What we are to understand from Genesis is this: a) God made everything, and b) everything is (of its nature) good.
just ask Soggoth
Antinous: The panel went very well, the conference was interesting (what I saw of it), and I had a good long talk with Boing Boing's new business manager.
The Instructables people did something very cool to my phone, but I'm going to see whether I can get a decent photo of it before I tell the story.
Narrativium
From Discworld & Pratchett Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The most common element on the disc, although not included in the list of the standard five: earth, fire, air, water and surprise. It ensures that everything runs properly as a story. For example, if a boy has two older brothers, chances are they will go on a quest. The first will be strong, and fail because of his stupidity, the second will be smart, and fail because of his frailty and the youngest brother will then have no choice but to go out, succeed and bring fame and fortune to his poor family. This phenomenon is also known as narrative causality. The application of this phenomenon appears to be governed by some loosely formulated laws.
The Wizards have found that the Roundworld has no Narrativium at all, and are amazed that it can still function.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Narrativium"
Category: Discworld concepts
The Roundworld is full of Narrativium, but most of it is privately held.
Speaking of God, causality, entropy, lizards and Ben Stein, has anyone else ever tried to change their profile pic? I've tried about ten times and I get, Oops, something went wrong: Invalid value "tie.jpg" for profile field: photo.
I have been completely unable to upload any profile pic.
TNH, the doctrine that the 613 mitzvot are meant just for the Jews is a traditional Jewish one. It's elaborated in the Talmud, of course, but plain reading of certain Biblical passages also supports it. For example:
So Evidence is under no obligation to explain why he doesn't follow kashrut or shatnetz, so long as he doesn't go around complaining about men lying with other men or suffering a witch to live.
complaining about men lying with other men or suffering a witch to live.
Feh. Busted on two counts.
I have been completely unable to upload any profile pic.
That pains me, considering comment #297.
I had no difficulty in uploading my profile pic, but only the pure in heart can see it
Avi, trying to get a literal view of creation introduced into the public school system doesn't count?
I don't know why your picture doesn't upload. Mine won't either. (Actually, I was trying to upload a photo of Hiro Frumentius; but the principle is the same.)
Yog! I'm sorry, I didn't spot your comment when I was here earlier, O elder ghod of chaos and evil. Thank you for the clarification, and please don't eat us today,
Doesn't count as what? Oh, my last paragraph? Hm. Nah, I'd have to say it doesn't. It's not like the mitzvot include arguing for creationism. By so arguing, he's not taking upon himself a duty specifically assigned to the Children of Israel.
I'm not engaging with Evidence myself because I spent a whole lotta time doing that kinda thing ten to fifteen years ago, and burned out on it.
PRETTY kitty!
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb266/fidelio_photos/Jemmy/S6300208.jpg
Was that an existentialol?
I can't help but wonder if we would even be having this discussion if, in place of xianity, some non-abramic, non-theistic religion had raped, pillaged, plundered, buggered, tortured, coerced, killed and converted it's way across the middle east, through Europe, and into America.
@ Evidence
Actually, the insect thing was just the first thing off the top of my head. But you're saying that the insects behavior changed when man sinned so that they would now annoy him? That makes no sense to me.
You said, "We evolve on a planet with food we can eat and tastes good, we make an eye that can see in an atmosphere where it is possible to see. We can breath the air, drink the water, it is the right temperature on and on."
How about the oceans? They cover 2/3 of the surface of the earth with water we CANNOT drink. Was it all fresh water before sin? Not likely, due to all of the species who depend on the salinity of the ocean for their survival. The oceans were CLEARLY not designed for HUMAN use. If they were designed for our use we would be able to drink from them or breathe in them. Yes, we derive certain foods from the oceans, but not enough to offset the surface area they take up.
As far as food tasting good, does it not taste good because it is good for us? I don't think food with all those additives and preservatives tastes nearly as good as fresher, healthier food. And while sugar is tasty, even that can be overdone. Food that makes us sick will cease to taste good to us. If you eat something new and it tastes pretty good, then vomit after a short while, when you go to eat the same thing the next time it will turn your stomach. It is a survival instinct.
Don't you see? We are so perfectly adapted to this planet because it is the planet on which we developed. If gravity would have been twice as intense, we wouldn't have developed such a solid form. Instead we would likely have developed a form that made it possible to get around in gravity of that force.
I think hadofedshu had it right. The only reason that Christianity and the Bible are en vogue right now is that it is simply tradition. If you hadn't been brought up in a society that supported those beliefs, would you have bought it when I told you about some guy who walked on water? Doubt it. You had to be sold these ideas as a child, then told to just take it on faith.
As far as the Bible is concerned, I haven't been able to find any corroborating evidence to give the stories an historical base. If I had a book that told you that in the 1820s Martians came down to earth, destroyed the entire cow population of Iowa, used the bones to build temples to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then left after a year, you would say that it was fiction because there was no historical record to support it. But if you found that in 1820 the meat supply from Iowa suddenly dropped off.... Even one shred of evidence would be helpful.
Similarly, many of the stories from the Bible are echoes of stories from earlier, now defunct religions. They are not original to Christianity at all.
I like how Richard Dawkins put it. We are all atheists with regards to most of the deities. Some of us just go one deity further.
you know, it's not like I'm unavailable. For those who need something or someone to worship. It makes as much sense, more actually since you could have a conversation with me and get actual excuses for things not going your way. Praying to me would give equal or better results. I'd probably to more good in the world with your money since my overhead is minimal. For those who feel there is a hole in their existence, consider Me. Takuan, the Reasonable Alternative.
Pickle worship takes on a whole new meaning. Film at 11.
I'm tempted. This thing about getting actual excuses for things not going my way, this is attractive. But, sorry, I already sent all my money to Pat Robertson or Tammie Fay or one of those... I forget.
I take cheques...... or the first born.
see? ringing silence...... crickets chirping.......faint sound of doors closing at far end of auditorium.
You're all the same. You'll talk a mean schtick about the "need for faith" and the "divine principle" - but when it's time to open the wallets and pony up: "ah, gotta go, left my soul at the cleaners anyways, maybe next time". yadayada....
Meanwhile I'm left with recruiting passing jellyfish. What am I, chopped kalamari?
(reading in awe Teresa@326)
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like... victory.
You're starting a new religion? Seems like it would be hard to really innovate in this field. Haven't all possible permutations been exhausted by now? Drugs, sex, power, money... they've all been throughly covered ad nauseam.
Tammy Fay? I saw her once when she was visiting her hubby in Minn. Tiny, tiny woman well over four feet tall I'd guess. Very nice too. I believe at the time her husband was seeing insect heads on the people around him. Must have been surrounded by Republicans. He's lucky they didn't eat him.
I have an innovation: Gimme yer money. Do what ya want. I think it will be a hit. Especially when they find out it's only a coupla bucks a head AND eternal salvation is abso-freaking-lutley guaranteed, or - after you're dead if not fully satisfied - ALL YOUR MONEY BACK! Just come see Me and be cheerfully refunded, WITH your choice of donut!!!! (I recommend the jelly)
Lord Takuan,
In this commune of ours you will be the subject of Antinous' monastery. Aright? Aright.
Evidence: You want one thing? Well, the best I can offer is "The Origin of Species". It was written to propose a theory not in the world at the time (or at least not as a coherent whole). It suffers from the misunderstandings of the day on how traits were passed along; i.e. how the mechanism of Darwin's idea of descent with modification would happen. But it sums up the question quite tidily.
But the thing is, it's not like a creation story. There isn't one single thing which, "proves" it, it is rather the weight of the totality of the evidence (the sequential nature of the fossil record [without which finding things like oil would be much more hit or miss], the trace evidence of genetics, the adaptation of bacteria to artifically introduced problems, e.g. antibiotics, the reactions of finches on Daphne Major, in the Galapagos, to environmental conditions; and the predicatble outcomes of those stresses, &c., &c.).
I have a question in return: How do you answer the irreducible complexity of the origin of God? Whence came He? How can you prove the validity of the Bible you keep saying "proves" that evolution is false?
As to your question on the odds of things... it doesn't matter. You are making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc mistake. The odds are long, but that's immaterial. 1 followed by 50 zeros is a lot, 1 followed by an infinite number of zero is a lot bigger.
When you compare those two numbers, the odds of the moon being where it is are pretty much a dead certainty. When you consider that the evidence is the moon used to be closer (ergo no total lunar eclipse, and the sun completely eradicated: no corona, during a solar eclipse, then the wonder of it remains, but the question, "What are the odds," goes away.
The odds are against winning the lottery, but people do. For them it was 1:1.
As to the question of the odds of the sky being lavendar, and a buncha moons, it's exactly the same as the odds of the planet we have (well, no, a lavendar sky would require a very differnt chemical mix in the atmosphere; but on the scale of actual odds, vs. infinite time and space, they are so close as to not matter).
The understanding you have of entropy is one of scale.
The Universe is (probably) going to go cold (this depends on the state of the accellerating parts, and a whole lot of other stuff, odds are it will go cold; based on what we now know). But the earth is a lot smaller. We aren't in a closed system. The sun pours a huge amount of energy into the system every day. That can be (and is used) to make things more complex.
Tenn: If you took up a faith because you decided Pascal's Wager was the way to bet... then yeah, you would be doing it to save your ass; and a lot of theologians would tell you that you weren't going to be saving it.
Me; I'm a weak theist, with a very developed theology (I considered becoming a Jesuit, and have done a lot of reading). If God is all loving, all knowing and all forgiving, your ass is safe. You may have a miserable piece of eternity while you figure out what needs figuring out, but in the grand scale of things (what with eternity being eternal, and all) reconciliation with the divine will happen.
So, IMO, the best thing to do is keep on keeping on, and be good to your fellow man. As Hillel said, "Love your neigbor as yourself, that is the whole of the law, all else is commentary."
hey, I get my commission; you can write the dogma
@Terry 353,
Pascal's Wager, huh? I like that concept, I just Google'd.
Well, I wouldn't actually do so. I am rather incapable of taking up a God-faith, because I cannot worship any idea of God that has been proposed to me. I would hope that if there was a God, he was all-loving, but that is not the Christian God.
I agree that 'keeping on keeping on', and being good to your fellow man is the best measure. Hillel's quote is a good one. I used the Pascal's Wager idea to explain to my mother why I cannot become Christian and it surprisingly quelled her arguments. She would like me to reconsider and will try to make me every hour of the livelong day, but she accepts that I have reasons behind it, now.
As far as I am aware I am a Zen Buddhist. I may change my beliefs to fit my knowledge when I have more of it, but the Buddhist concept of sin being what harms others, yourself, or has bad intentions is a good one to me, and the only one I worry about.
If there is a God that would smite me for the sin of not believing in him, (or not worshipping,) than I do believe I am damned. But I am reasonably sure such a creature does not exist, and I don't even believe I could worship him if he did.
Oh! Lord Takuan!
Most Briny, most Massive, of the Small Pickles!
May we forever have his Glory upon us!
As always, Teresa (326), you are my Heroine. And all this without disemvowelling a sentence.
I've picked (stolen) a hymn suitable for me:
(I want to break free)
(I want to break free)
I want to break free from your lies
You're so self satisfied I don't need you
I've want to break free
God knows, God knows I want to break free
I've fallen in love
I've fallen in love for the first time
And this time I know it's for real
I've fallen in love, yeah
God knows, God knows I've fallen in love
It's strange but it's true
I can't get over the way you love me like you do
But I have to be sure
When I walk out that door
Oh how I want to be free, baby
Oh how I want to break free,
Oh how I want to break free
But life still goes on
I can't get used to, living without, living without,
Living without you by my side
I don't want to live alone, hey
God knows, got to make it on my own
So baby can't you see
God knows, gods know, gods know
I've want to break free
Would you be opposed to this being in Gregorian Chant?
Take mercy on me for my early leave. Must get to those nightly prayers I'll establish before I sleep. Ta!
g'nite
hey Greg and Mad; if you like that bit of Teresa's work, you'll LOVE this classic:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/06/tsa-endangers-childs.html#comment-138897
Tenn: I bed to differ on the Christian God, but I can see why you think that. Since my form of theism is Christian, and I believe in the God I described (wherein there isn't damnation, per se), it's not so much the question of the God (which is, by definition something one can't comprehend in toto. As Gaiman and Pratchett put it, "There's no point in second-guessig the ineffable.") as that of the church and adherents.
Takuan: I think Greg, at least, has seen that one. I know I did, because I commented in that thread.
Then again, there's a lot of her flensing the illogical fat from arguments to be seen in the world.
yeah, ain't it great?
Sorry to come in a bit late but I couldn't resist commenting on the "evos" vs. "creos".
What strikes me about the discussion are the ominous signs of idealism and dogmatisation on the part of the evos. This has far-reaching consequences for all of us.
Genetics and evolution as they are currently widely understood form the basis for the coming generation of lucrative medical research (gene-based therapies) as well as genetic engineering of foods. Yet there is a great deal about evolution that is uncertain, and some aspects of it have already been cast into doubt by scientific research--and not the fake kind put forth by ID "scientists":
That the lizards have surprised us is just one recent example but there are other much better ones. It is well known that random mutation followed by natural selection plays at best a small role in the evolution of bacteria on small time scales, because bacteria exchange or excrete DNA much faster than random mutations occur. Or to point out a different aspect, gene expression (genes switching on and off in response to environmental cues) can hugely change the traits of bacteria--this may be erroneously attributed to evolution, whereas the genes are not changing at all. Perhaps those lizards are giving us the first demonstration of this phenomenon occurring in animals--an exciting prospect. To give one final and rather amazing example, there are experiments showing that bacteria can change their own genes without reproducing--gene change without evolution. This has been known for at least 20 years but nobody is talking about it because it is considered heresy by the scientific establishment. (Yes, scientists use words like "dogma" and "heresy"--in print no less--to describe scientific ideas. Warning to those who deride the "creos": watch your backs!)
But the theory of evolution has already been incorporated into our biological understanding of ourselves. How often do you hear the word "genetic" used to explain so many aspects of our lives?
Such new discoveries threaten the basis of profitability of genetic techniques and therefore receive tremendous opposition in the form of funding of scientific propaganda. The propaganda appears in science journals as well as news stories that go hammering on about the by-now-obsolete ideas that your genes permanently determine your susceptibility to heart disease, cancer and so on. We have forgotten so much (or it has been suppressed): heart-disease and cancer cannot be genetically inherited diseases because their rates of increase have been far greater than the speed of genetic evolution. Both heart disease and cancer were virtually unknown before the 20th century.
I fear that science has become the new religion and that the vehemence with which the evos fight the creos is misdirected. Each can learn from the other. In particular, the evos might learn that the god of nature still knows better than our scientists what we should eat--and that our scientists are out to destroy the nature on which our health depends, out of a predisposition for atheism and profit.
#344 TAKUAN
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Now if only I hadn't pledged all my money to Pastor Melissa Scott, the sexy, former-porn-star widow of the late great Dr. Gene Scott.
Or to quote a Raymond Pettibon cartoon: the fat hippie guru says "I have more (teenage female) disciples than Jesus did!"
@Era
Your argument with regard to genetics and disease is a mix of strawman and post hoc reasoning.
I'm sort of busy now, so I'll keep it short but ...
The germ theory of disease didn't become popular until the late 19th century. I don't know off the top of my head when heart disease and cancer were discovered, but while you talk about them as being "virtually unknown" they were unknown for a a long time. The expected mortality rate due to either of those will also have to do with the expected lifespan of given population (you have to live long enough for either to show up).
There is definitely a relationship between lifestyle and expected outcome, but among a population with an identical lifestyle, genetics play a role in determining expected outcomes.
~~~
Also @era:
AFAIK nobody said heart disease and cancer were "genetically inherited diseases". Some people are genetically predisposed to those and other maladies, but that's different.
Heart disease and cancer were there all the time (and known to be there). It was only when people stopped dying of plague, cholera, tuberculosis, etc., that heart disease and cancer became significant causes of death.
@JakeTheSnake
By "virtually unknown" I do not mean that they were unknown to doctors. However most doctors never saw a heart patient before say 1910. By 1940 they were not rare. Today we have an epidemic.
The expected mortality rate due to [cancer or heart disease] will also have to do with the expected lifespan of given population (you have to live long enough for either to show up).
This common argument is incorrect. If it were true, you would expect the increase to occur only in older populations. However the recent high rate of increase in cancer occurred in all age groups, and the onset of heart disease is occurring earlier and earlier--now doctors are seeing heart patients in their 30s. You would also expect that our present rates of disease could be seen in the past for older people. Yet older people were generally free of heart disease and cancer in the 19th century.
There is definitely a relationship between lifestyle and expected outcome, but among a population with an identical lifestyle, genetics play a role in determining expected outcomes.
I agree with you. But consider taking this argument to its logical conclusion. Place me naked in the sun with my feet buried and leave me there for a few days--I will die of thirst, starvation and exposure. Do the same with a plant and it will thrive. Does this mean I have a genetic predisposition to some kind of diseases under certain circumstances? Well yes of course it does. --the plant's genes "protect" it from "disease" under those circumstances while mine "predispose" me to "disease". Plenty of research shows that heart disease and cancer are diseases of the same variety--if your diet is nutrient-poor you will get sick, and the obverse.
This is the problem with the genetic explanation--it applies equally to everything without addressing the root causes of disease. Beware the new wave of pharmaceutical research: they are doing massive statistical analyses of thousands of genes simultaneously to find that this one contributes a 10% risk, these three a 5% risk, etc. and they will go on to develop drugs to attack all these genes in people supposedly to improve their health. But this kind of research is totally bogus because when you do thousands of statistical analyses simultaneously a few are likely (law of large numbers) to produce false positive correlations. But the profiteers know that this is enough to convince people to buy their drugs.
@Era
ps Your argument about what the "evos" can learn from the "creos" is utter crap too. Until recently our drive to conquer nature was because of our divine right to, now it's our divine nature not to?
I'm as down on scientists who claim to know more than they do as I am on religious zealots who claim the same.
@ERA
"science has become the new religion?" You are treading dangerously close to IVA BIGGRUDGE territory here.
Science is self regulating; it makes mistakes, and corrects those mistakes. If you are a creationist however, "God makes no mistakes."
On the Origin of Species was not a perfect book, and nobody claims it is; Darwin didn't rule out Lamarck's idea of "acquired-inherited traits" or even know about genetics. The Bible on the other hand is widely considered "perfect" by creationists, and not allowed to be edited or corrected. Therein lies the problem. Scientists don't burn other scientists at the stake for "scientific heresy." They may have economic self-interest in mind, and denigrate another theory, but in the end if their research doesn't pan out then they get no more money for research and their "propaganda" was for naught-- investment goes where it is profitable, the money doesn't care about egos or ideas, only making more money. In other words, don't worry about egotistical hard-headed scientists, they get their comeuppance in the end. Those kinds of arguments between scientific schools are just bumps in the road, and eventually the bumps get smoothed out.
I am curious: the bacteria experiments you speak of-- are these findings being suppressed/ignored, or are the findings just not reproducible? (see: cold fusion.)
@Era
You don't get to claim hatred of big pharma as your own. You've got a lot of company there, myself included.
@Era
Do you know of any decent epidemiology from the early 20th century or so? I ask out of genuine curiosity.
"fossils only form under special circumstances" I clicked on the link provided and here is the first point.
"Fossils of hard mineral parts (like bones and teeth) were formed as follows: Some animals were quickly buried after their death (by sinking in mud, being buried in a sand storm, etc.).
Over time, more and more sediment covered the remains."
I agree fossil form under special circumstances exactly like the ones listed above.
Think of every fossil you have seen. I would say the majority if not all of them fit the description "buried by sinking in mud, being buried in a sand storm, etc."
Sounds like a global flood to me.
If there was a global flood what would you expect to find?
Millions of buried dead things on a global scale?
Occam's razor = All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.
I do find fossil most every time I dig in my back yard and it reminds me God judged the world once and He has promised to to it again, next time with fire.
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Era: How many people die of "fever" today (tertian, quotidian, "sudden")? Millions, but we don't call it that (they also tend to do it in places like Africa, SE Asia, &c.)
The reason is, we've pretty much licked malaria in the developed world (though it lingered in Sweden until the 18th century; when changes in husbandry moved the mosquitoes away from people, but I digress).
A lot of the people who, "took ill and died suddenly" were victims of heart disease. Those doctors who, "never saw a heart patient", probably did, but they lacked the mindset to see it for what it was.
If one reads the medical literature of the 19th century we see lots of "costive" patients, with, "elarged livers".
We see people who have, "the stone", which is bladder stones, for some reason those have, largely, gone away.
You are confusing reportage (and worldview ) with the actual facts. It's a case of the map not being the territory.
When a child was, "sickly" and died at eight, was it malaria, sickle cell or leukemia? We don't know. Some of the "younger" illnesses might have been hidden by the earlier causes of death. If I have a cancer which is going to kill me (look for references to wasting diseases), at 45, and I die of work and malnutrition at 40 (or from a septic injury, fumes at the factory, a head blow from leaving a horse; absent a helmet, or any other of the myriad ways one might die) that cancer won't show up; even if it were a disease to be diagnosed.
When the use of a physician was something limited to a narrow class of people, then the reportage of epidemic information (which wasn't centralised) is going to be full of holes as well.
Further, the pre-disposition might not manifest, if the other triggers aren't in play (nb, I have a genetically predisposed disease; it requires environmental factors to be triggered, so my father doesn't have it, my grandfather's didn't have it, my uncles don't have it... it may be they are prone to it; but they weren't in the sorts of places; at the right age [oddly it shows a pattern in when it manifests, as well as in whom]) then the diseases will lie dormant.
I find it amusing you are arguing for a level of genetic determinism the "dogmatists" you see in the "evo" world don't.
Now, if you want to propose a testable hyposthesis to show the invalidity of the mechanisms presently thought to be the causes of these things, there are lots of peope (public and private) willing to pay for the research.
Tenn 355:
BINGO.Believing in the existence of something is determined by your upbringing, your nature, your knowledge. But to worship or not to worship is a choice, always. I'd like to think that even if I knew for certain fact that the Lovecraftian horror worshipped as "God" by the Westboro Baptist Church were the one true and only God, I would not worship it.
Of course, by differentiating between these things we also must realize that belief is not a prerequisite for worship, either, and that's where I have a useful contribution to make. Buy my book when it comes out (don't hold your breath though, the sucker ain't writ yet).
Era 364:
Now you're being silly. By that argument an allergy to potatoes can't be genetic in Europe, because no one got symptoms of a potato allergy there before 1492 (when potatoes were introduced). New environmental hazards are introduced all the time, and some people are more susceptible to them than others. Things just aren't single-cause deterministic. If you have an oncogene, you need to watch out for the type of cancer it codes for; that doesn't mean you'll get it, and of course taking your antioxidants and whatever might help prevent it.
The "evos" have nothing at all to learn from the creos. And blaming the "scientists" for the destruction of nature is so backward as to be laughable: "dominion over the Earth," a serious mistranlation, has meant that Christians, primarily, have trashed Nature. They believe Nature is to be subdued, even that it's evil. After all, doesn't it say so in the Bible?Evidence...your last post was completely incoherent. You seem to be saying that the lack of fossils all over the world means evolution can't be true, but that the presence of them proves there was a global flood. This is just plain wacky.
Or you're being disingenuous. Or you're a junior high school kid, in which case you need to look up 'disingenuous'.
Evidence: Two things: You've not answered Teresa's questions on how you pick and choose the parts of the Bible which you feel compelled to take in the "plain" reading style you say tells you the Bible denies evolution (and I wonder at just which passage does that, but hey, that's just me).
I see that you say you are LDS.
Where is the evidence for the cities described in the Book of Mormon? Where are the remains of the wheat, and the barley; the cattle and the chariots,the metalwork and the civilisations described in the Book of Mormon?
Because those are mentioned; in one of the books you seem to think less fallible than the applied workings of tens of thousands of minds, each building one on the other (Newton's sentiment that if he had seen further than others it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants, is well taken).
You say the evidence for evolution should be everyhwere. Well, if we could find Troy, recover things as small as a single ship (be it galleon, or the Titanic), certainly the civilisation of the Nephites ought to be findable.
Where is the coinage? How is it grains we can't find traces of (e.g. barley) until the arrival of Europeans, were used as the basis for those units of money?
The problem is you have one standard of evidence for the thing you disbelieve (absolute proof) and you are willing to make great leaps of faith (and I'll wager, no small amount of apologia) to explain away the failings in the things you do believe.
Shakespeare said it best, "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
I believe the validity of Evolution because I find the power and majesty of the divine to be so overwhelming.
I don't need shortcuts like, "Fiat Lux" to keep it that way.
Terry, I reckon "Fiat Lux" is as good as the current explanation of the origin of the universe, which fades away into handwaving and the-math-is-too-complicated-for-you-proles-to-understand when it gets to t=zero.
Think of every fossil you have seen. I would say the majority if not all of them fit the description "buried by sinking in mud, being buried in a sand storm, etc."
Sounds like a global flood to me.
Why in hell does it sound like a global flood to you?
What about lake beds river beds flash floods localized floods swamps!? It says sinking in mud, not 'sinking in mud formed from a flood that lasted a year and covered the entire earth.' I seem to recall that there is not enough water in the world to cover every bit of land mass and even if it were possible (would factcheck but am on slow computer), why does that scream God's judgement?
You find fossils most every time you look in your back yard? Bully for you. Why does it matter? You likely live in a place that was once geographically inclined to fossilize.
That's a faulty argument. Just because there are fossils does not mean there was a flood. If there was a flood, does not mean it was God. I don't even see how that's relevant. I told you why there aren't a hundred thousand isntances of transitional fossils (but there are -enough,-), you told me why any fossils existing are from God's judgement. I also gave you specific instances of transitional fossils, and you simply said that they are not transitional, and used a flippant comment about Wal-Mart denizens having neanderthalic skulls.
And before you say 'it is in the Bible, and therefore it is true,' or 'a flood proves the entire Bible'- no. It doesn't. If we found evidence of a global flood, it would prove only the account true- and not even Noah's story. 2 of every animal in a 40(?) cubit boat? What about mayflies? They don't even live as long as the flood lasted. Did they lay eggs, rebirth? What about locusts, who shelter for 17 years? Did Noah pluck them from the ground, put them in a safe box, and then tuck them back in the ground when all was well and done?
Believing in the existence of something is determined by your upbringing, your nature, your knowledge. But to worship or not to worship is a choice, always. I'd like to think that even if I knew for certain fact that the Lovecraftian horror worshipped as "God" by the Westboro Baptist Church were the one true and only God, I would not worship it.
The more I read your comments the more I enjoy your eloquence. I have been raised to believe, but I do not; it's my nature and my knowledge that wins. I vaguely recall a study that suggested that the predisposition to belief / faith is neurologically based. I respect your theistic leanings, because as similar to a fantastic few Christians I know, they seem to be based on a good deity. What is your view on the Bible, precisely? Of what I've read (and despite all arguments to the contrary, I've probably read everything in it over the years), many a concept seems at odds with the good and forgiving God Christians tout for converts.
@377
Read it again I said I am not a Mormon for the reasons you state and many others.
If you believe in evolution don't blame God for it.
@XOPHER
"You seem to be saying that the lack of fossils all over the world means evolution can't be true, but that the presence of them proves there was a global flood. This is just plain wacky."
Lack of transitional fossils not fossils in general. Please tell me you understand what I am saying?
I do think some of my/our problem is that we do talk past each other. People with the same world view as I have know what I mean when I say what I say and I am sure the same can be said for your camp. It seems hard for us to communicate and is frustrating for both sides.
General info for accuracy in all the slams thrown my way.
I am 42 and not in junior high I actually graduated in the top 10% of my class in high school in the sate of Indiana.
None of you would count my college as real because evolution was not taught.
I am a Pastor of a small church in the same town I grew up in and I work full time in the graphic arts industry.
I have been married for 21 years. So I am straight and not anyones boyfriend.
The only thing that I have done that would interest any of you is a rock (for lack of a better word) that my family found.
It is a fulgurite that we found in our yard. Indiana University, Indiana state museum, IUPUI and a few other colleges and clubs have some of it in their collections. (I wish I looked like the one in Sweet Home Alabama because I would be rich but most of the cool green glass is on the inside)
I have never lived under a bridge, or been intentionally stupid or deceptive in my comments. I am serious I am not playing.
I am sarcastic and according to my wife I am a jerk sometimes but what can I say. God is not done with me yet.
I am truly sorry for how people have treated you in the name of Jesus and I hope I haven't been a wedge to drive any of you further from Him.
"Occam's razor = All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
EVIDENCE's razor = "All other things being equal, the simple-minded solution is the best."
(relax, it's good-natured ribbing.)
There are a lot of questions EVIDENCE hasn't answered here, and even when he does answer questions his answers are poorly-written and disjointed. He claims that we are "talking past each other" because the two camps have their own world-view. Fine-- EVIDENCE, here you are debating a majority of evolution-believers, so perhaps in order to more forcefully argue your points you would be wise to learn science as we see it, and use that knowledge and terminology. You are the odd-man-out here, not us.
I mentioned earlier that I didn't know why I was debating this anymore, so please just answer me one question EVIDENCE: Do you believe a perpetual-motion device is possible?
I ask this because I have known other creationists to deny the laws of thermodynamics. Your answer will decide whether I continue in this debate or not.
Thanks, and seeing as how yesterday was Easter (for my relatives anyway, if not for me as an agnostic) I'll offer you a respectful Христос Воскресе!
@TENN
"What about mayflies, locusts"
The Bible says they only took things that breathed with nostrils on the ark.
"Gen 7:22
All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life"
Insects do not breathe that with nostrils. Probably for the reasons you sate and more. They could have easily survived on mats of dead things floating around and the ones in the ground just stayed there.
Also you attribute things to me that I didn't say. Though I do despise the Westboro Baptist Church and anything they stand for.
"Believing in the existence of something is determined by your upbringing"
Most of you say you were brought up Christian but now are not so that is not it.
"many a concept seems at odds with the good and forgiving God Christians tout for converts"
Like what?
Just to reiterate Tenn's point, in case you miss it, Evidence, there are