Macro, Micro or both?

[celtic friend]

Do you believe in Macroevolution, Microevolution or both?

[swivel]

I don't think you can get the former without the latter. So the question could be rephrased:

Do you believe in Macroevolution?

If yes, you believe in both. If no, you don't believe in evolution (which is an observed phenomenon).

[celtic friend]

I only asked the question because in recent weeks or trips ( I listen to talk radio), I have heard the argument for Micro only not Marcoevolution.
So I will say, you are right and the heading should have been more thought of and rephrased.
You can believe in Micro w/o Macro, but not Macro w/o Micro.

[swivel]

I only asked the question because in recent weeks or trips ( I listen to talk radio), I have heard the argument for Micro only not Marcoevolution.
So I will say, you are right and the heading should have been more thought of and rephrased.
You can believe in Micro w/o Macro, but not Macro w/o Micro.

And both are observable phenomenon. It should be called the "Law of Evolution" and the "Theory of Natural Selection".

We know that organisms have evolved. All evidence points towards Natural Selection as the driving mechanism.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Its called theory, because it's exactly that. Theory.

It has to be observed, tested, reproduced to even quality as scientific fact, and it hasnt, and cant.

[What Would Satan Do]

Its called theory, because it's exactly that. Theory.

It has to be observed, tested, reproduced to even quality as scientific fact, and it hasnt, and cant.

Just because it hasn't been tested doesn't mean it could not be. (It'd be one hell of a long experiment though)
The "theory" however is based on observable scientific facts.

[TheMorningStar]

Just because it hasn't been tested doesn't mean it could not be. (It'd be one hell of a long experiment though)
The "theory" however is based on observable scientific facts.

You mean an experiment like this one?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

[swivel]

Its called theory, because it's exactly that. Theory.

It has to be observed, tested, reproduced to even quality as scientific fact, and it hasnt, and cant.

It does not have to be observed to qualify as fact. Observation can be of evidence left behind. We understand plate tectonics without observing the actual drift of continents. We knew the principles of diamond formation before we got to watch them grow under heat and pressure in the lab. We know that the planets formed via accretion by looking at impact craters, and the belt of debris that exists were a planet should have formed, but couldn't due to Jupiter's gravity well.

Lucky for us, you are wrong on both counts. Not only do we NOT need observation to prove a law, we HAVE observed evolution on numerous accounts. And we have thousands of transitional fossils that allow us to "observe" the process of macro-evolution as well.

It is the most-tested theory in human history, and it has survived all rival theories. No other scientific field has been as stable as biology, because no other field has had a perfect theory created by a genius so far ahead of their time. What Darwin did would only be equaled by a Newton skipping gravitational theory and going straight to relativity. The only other field of thought that has remained so stable, despite so much criticism, is the economics of Adam Smith.

[CPL CHUD]

Do you believe in gravity? That's basically how the question comes off to me, except gravity seems to be a lot more complicated than evolution.

[swivel]

Do you believe in gravity? That's basically how the question comes off to me, except gravity seems to be a lot more complicated than evolution.

Fucking awesome.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Only, not.


Scientific Fact:

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted



If they could call Evolution The Law Of, they would. For any scientific theory to be called a fact, or law, it HAS to be observed. TO say something is true, because we suspect its so, or presume its so because of circumstantial evidence, is just silly.

Gravity is called law because we can test it, watch it, and reproduce it. Complicated as it is, if I drop a fork, its going to fall. But if I buy a lizard, breed it, and continue to keep that lizard family for eons with my family for eons, that lizard family wont evwentually grow wings.

[swivel]

If they could call Evolution The Law Of, they would. For any scientific theory to be called a fact, or law, it HAS to be observed. TO say something is true, because we suspect its so, or presume its so because of circumstantial evidence, is just silly.

Gravity is called law because we can test it, watch it, and reproduce it. Complicated as it is, if I drop a fork, its going to fall. But if I buy a lizard, breed it, and continue to keep that lizard family for eons with my family for eons, that lizard family wont evwentually grow wings.

You are incorrect. And there is much pressure in the biological community right now to start referring to Evolution as a Law, and Natural Selection as a Theory.

Evolution has been observed, as has been pointed out in this thread several times. You are confusing the argument against Natural Selection with the argument against Evolution. A common mistake, since most people think that Darwin dreamed up Evolution, even though his grandfather was an evolutionist.

Great read at Wired.com: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Thanks for the link. I always enjoy debating with the likes of you, CPL, Athena, and others who always have something to offer. When I can come here, and get engaged in these kinds of things, it makes me realize why this place can be special, and why I like you motherfuckers so much.

However, the write-up in the link was terrible. :D It's like a scolded kindergartener wrote that, and right now, I have all of two minutes before I have to go again, but in approx. two hours or so, I'll return and post why I thought it was dreadful. I just read this, and HAD to say how ridiculous I thought it was before I headed out to work again. :o See ya in just a bit, and I'll dive give an appropriate response then.

[swivel]

However, the write-up in the link was terrible

I thought otherwise. I originally read the article in the physical magazine, and it excited me to no end. Here was a guy that understood the failing of science to engage in the social war that religion fights alone, and therefore wins. Scientists need to fully understand the power of semantics, and spend at least some of their time on PR work, rather than focusing on just the results of experiment.

All the scientific progress in the world will mean squat if we let our teachers place creationism alongside evolutionary theory. We might as well teach Ptolemaic cosmology alongside the Standard Model.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I thought otherwise. I originally read the article in the physical magazine, and it excited me to no end. Here was a guy that understood the failing of science to engage in the social war that religion fights alone, and therefore wins. Scientists need to fully understand the power of semantics, and spend at least some of their time on PR work, rather than focusing on just the results of experiment.

All the scientific progress in the world will mean squat if we let our teachers place creationism alongside evolutionary theory. We might as well teach Ptolemaic cosmology alongside the Standard Model.

In fairness, Ill post in a few seconds why I didn't like it.

But to address your point, I think it also addresses the big flaw in the article. You say "here's a guy who understood the failing of science to engage in the SOCIAL WAR that religion fights alone"....

That's why he fails too, as many religious zealots who wage the creation war do....because he's making it a war. This is why science is beautiful to me, because it is without agenda....Science to me, is the discovery of who, what, why, where and all that shit, and I don't begrudge it one bit, just because I believe in a higher presence. Not a bit. But this guy who writes this thing, sounds like he's engaging in this, and even well---let me go make my post addressing the article before I get ahead of myself.

BRB....

[swivel]

I'm not suggesting that all scientists need to stop what they are doing and engage superstition, only that the sciences in general need to maintain a populist voice that engages the public in the same manner that superstitions do. We need our Sagan's, Dawkins', Russell's, etc... And part of this game is semantics. If the popular usage of "Theory" becomes "Guess", we need to stop using it in science to mean "Accepted Explanation".

The word "Law", in popular use, has become something which is considered bendable (if not breakable). Speed limits are suggestions, not absolutes. Let's use the word "Law" in science to mean what "Theory" used to mean, a tested hypothesis for which there is no current doubt regarding veracity. Current scientific laws are constantly upgraded with new observation (the law of conservation of energy was modified with the discovery of virtual particle pair creation, and the law of gravity was modified with Relativity, and even Euclidean geometry was modified with non-Euclidian {curved} spaces).

The author's point is right-on. Science needs to fight, not just for the truth, but for its own survival. It needs to fight for the hearts and minds of the public at large.

[CPL CHUD]

The fight for the realization of an objective reality is a battle worth engaging in. True understanding takes a back seat when we give in to whims of fantasy, when we let the squeeky wheels convince people that dinosaurs aren't real the doors are open for any speculation based on the human heart and not the mind. This epistemology is indicative of the dark age.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

To address the article, and why I think Clive Thompson is a moron:




When he speaks of Quinn's essay, he says: Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.

It's intellectual dishonesty to just say fuck it, we're 99% sure, even though there is a chance we could be wrong, let's call it fact. Because there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing toward this, we'll call it The Law Of.

ANd here, in his bit about the culture wars, he even refers to the language of science as a strength, hence: Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself

So he would take this, what he perceives as strength, and change it--modify the language, just so he could fight back on their level and be "right". It's senseless. He's being a hypocrite. He is understandably frustrated, because he believes passionately about something, but he is arguing to lower the standards so he can feel like he's winning these "culture wars".

So he goes into the defense of this....defense of this. And even suggests, as Quinn has, that in PUBLIC, they change the lexicon, and defends Quinn, when she suggests: "we need to be less cautious, in PUBLIC, when talking about scientific conclusions that are GENERALLY agreed upon."

That whore is talking about flat out manipulating the scientific language and passing theory off as fact just because most agree, but not all. And this jerk off is waving a flag and parading around with the banner of hypocrisy...to me, that's disgusting. And this, to me, has nothing to do with creationists, religion, or anything. This to me, are a few bad seeds who want to change the way science works, and is represented, just to win a culture war. SHameful.

He calls evolution supersolid. Fair enough, but there are real differences between micro and macro. Evolution is real, yes. But the kind of origin evolution that is being talked about...macro evolution, is most certainly NOT supersolid. But he says, yeah, let's call it LAW. Close enough. And then the piece of shit even refers to it as linguistic jujitsu. Says it will be cool, because if someone says they don't believe in the LAW of evolution, they'll sound insane. Likens evolution to gravity, which to me, is disgusting. This guy is an agenda driven pile of shit, to me. And its people like this, just like evangelical nutjobs with agenda driven wars being waged, that are a detriment to progress in these fields.

To try and suppress theory about religion...to try and suppress theory about evolution as well...I don't know, seems ridiculous. Schools? Let the children know whats out there....let them know what science has uncovered, let them know about all religions and why they're out there, and the pasts, good and bad. Let them make up their own goddamn minds. Parents are going to influence them anyway. :o

And here is Clive's last disgusting paragraph:

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.


Yeah. Basically, our own high standards work against us in some public opinion, so let's sacrifice that, become hypocrites so we can get political, baby, yeah!

Fuck Clive Thompson, and I bet lots of scientists agree.

That's my theory, anyway. :( <----Okay, that was bad. I'm sorry.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I'm not suggesting that all scientists need to stop what they are doing and engage superstition, only that the sciences in general need to maintain a populist voice that engages the public in the same manner that superstitions do. We need our Sagan's, Dawkins', Russell's, etc... And part of this game is semantics. If the popular usage of "Theory" becomes "Guess", we need to stop using it in science to mean "Accepted Explanation".

The word "Law", in popular use, has become something which is considered bendable (if not breakable). Speed limits are suggestions, not absolutes. Let's use the word "Law" in science to mean what "Theory" used to mean, a tested hypothesis for which there is no current doubt regarding veracity. Current scientific laws are constantly upgraded with new observation (the law of conservation of energy was modified with the discovery of virtual particle pair creation, and the law of gravity was modified with Relativity, and even Euclidean geometry was modified with non-Euclidian {curved} spaces).

The author's point is right-on. Science needs to fight, not just for the truth, but for its own survival. It needs to fight for the hearts and minds of the public at large.


swivel, science is not in danger, my brother. I promise you.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

The fight for the realization of an objective reality is a battle worth engaging in. True understanding takes a back seat when we give in to whims of fantasy, when we let the squeeky wheels convince people that dinosaurs aren't real the doors are open for any speculation based on the human heart and not the mind. This epistemology is indicative of the dark age.

This is all just a little dramatic.

[Athena]

This has suddenly become a really interesting conversation. I find myself generally unconvinced, which doesn't happen too often. I do hope you fellas continue to hash this one out so that I can eventually pick a side. In this situation, observing the conversation is almost as exciting as engaging in it. :)

On an off note - While CPL's post was a bit dramatic (I figured he intended that), it was beautifully written.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

This has suddenly become a really interesting conversation. I find myself generally unconvinced, which doesn't happen too often. I do hope you fellas continue to hash this one out so that I can eventually pick a side. In this situation, observing the conversation is almost as exciting as engaging in it. :)

On an off note - While CPL's post was a bit dramatic (I figured he intended that), it was beautifully written.

CPL always writes well. Even when he uses those bad unicorn analogies. :D

Truth be told, I love reading from both these guys, but I disagree strongly with them on this one.

[swivel]

If we have a theory with 99.99% surety, and we start calling it a law, and some major breakthrough takes place which overturns it, we won't be able to update our ontology? This is already what happens, dude. We have had theories that were 100% which were destroyed and replaced.

Science is never really 100%. Bertrand Russell proved this with his Principia. Even mathematics can not be determined to be wholly internally consistent. That bit of assumption is the .001% in every scientific theory/law.

Your expectations of science are precisely the problem we need to address. In order to GET to 99% requires a whole heap of evidence. The type of evidentiary mountain not easily moved in the future. If gravity is a law, then so is evolution.

I really don't understand your hang-up here. You aren't making any sense to me at all.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

If we have a theory with 99.99% surety, and we start calling it a law, and some major breakthrough takes place which overturns it, we won't be able to update our ontology? This is already what happens, dude. We have had theories that were 100% which were destroyed and replaced.

Science is never really 100%. Bertrand Russell proved this with his Principia. Even mathematics can not be determined to be wholly internally consistent. That bit of assumption is the .001% in every scientific theory/law.

Your expectations of science are precisely the problem we need to address. In order to GET to 99% requires a whole heap of evidence. The type of evidentiary mountain not easily moved in the future. If gravity is a law, then so is evolution.

I really don't understand your hang-up here. You aren't making any sense to me at all.

That's too bad, I think I'm being very clear.

[CPL CHUD]

It seems like the author is just trying to overturn the common misconception that evolution is a theory. It's not. It's a law, liken to gravity. I think you're misconceiving some sort of lax in standards where one doesn't exist.

We actually know less about gravity than evolution. The means in which evolution occurs is where the crux of the debate is. That's where the theories lie. The fact that evolution occurs is not really up for debate, at least not for any scientific reasons.

And yeah, I meant for that other post to be overly dramatic. It adds life to the fray.;)

[swivel]

I didn't think it was that dramitic. I read it pretty literally and found it to be spot-on.

[Raq me darkly]

I found that the language The Diabolical Mr. Lieman chose to use weakened his argument. Calling terminology "invalid" would have been more persuasive but using terms like "piece of shit" and calling someone a "whore" are not much better than the people who come here posting that "U PPL DONT KNOW SHIT".

I am afraid I must concurr with my "god" swivel that nothing is ever totally sure but calling something "law" when current science shows it to be so is correct. Science is never rigid, things change and we learn more every day. Who knows, maybe someday we may find an instance where gravity does not work as we always thought it would. In anticipation of that event, does that mean calling it the "law of gravity" is also invalid?

[Athena]

I found that the language The Diabolical Mr. Lieman chose to use weakened his argument. Calling terminology "invalid" would have been more persuasive but using terms like "piece of shit" and calling someone a "whore" are not much better than the people who come here posting that "U PPL DONT KNOW SHIT".

LMAO. Raq, normally, I'd be right with you. But, if he ever gets to posting with regularity, you will notice that Lieman is a sharp savage, here to club people with his perspective, rather than wage civil arguments meant to appeal to the reader.

...and that's why I love seeing him post. I'm bound by a certain level of formality. He's not. It's refreshing.


I am afraid I must concurr with my "god" swivel that nothing is ever totally sure but calling something "law" when current science shows it to be so is correct. Science is never rigid, things change and we learn more every day. Who knows, maybe someday we may find an instance where gravity does not work as we always thought it would. In anticipation of that event, does that mean calling it the "law of gravity" is also invalid?

I certainly agree that we refer to evolution as a law and natural selection as a theory, as swivel suggests.

What I'm not sold on is the belief that we must do so in order to combat our enemy in a war...that we're already winning. With every day that passes, science chips away at superstition, through nothing but sheer merit. More and more people shed the burden of blind faith; those who are religious are less devout. This success isn't the result of "linguistic jujitsu", but rather, good ol' substance.

Should I hop on the bandwagon that will shake up the standard protocol of the entire scientific community when tactical adjustments haven't even been proven necessary? If it ain't broke...right?

[swivel]

Should I hop on the bandwagon that will shake up the standard protocol of the entire scientific community when tactical adjustments haven't even been proven necessary? If it ain't broke...right?

Are we winning in the United States? Less than half our population thinks that evolution occurs. Not natural selection... Evolution!

[CPL CHUD]

Creationist's museum.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

I guess reality is a popularity contest.

[celtic friend]

Are we winning in the United States? Less than half our population thinks that evolution occurs. Not natural selection... Evolution!
I went to a Catholic school b/c of my Mom and city school district. That being said, we were told about dinosaurs, but then also told they did not exist. It was kind of confusing, we were told about Adam and Eve and then told by Sister Marie Cecile that it was kind of just a guess about the being of man.
I do not know many people who don't believe in evolution and I know TONS of people...just joking. But seriously, I only know of my Aunt who is an evangelical now.

[Athena]

Are we winning in the United States? Less than half our population thinks that evolution occurs. Not natural selection... Evolution!

I understand this. However, is it a smaller percentage than 10 years ago? 20? Is the rate of acceptance actually decreasing? Also, don't you think this is testament to an educational failure, rather than a linguistic one? Adjusting the terminology used does nothing to address the root of the issue.

Other modernized nations don't have this problem (well, except for Turkey, but it barely counts). They don't call evolution a law in their text books - they stand up to the lunacy that is fundamentalist religion. We need educational standards that give a middle finger to the Protestants in this country. Let them pull their kids out of school, rather than dragging ours down with them.

[Raq me darkly]

Creationist's museum.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

I guess reality is a popularity contest.

I was watching Nightline (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=4467337&page=1) and they were talking about these tour guides who would take christian tours through science museums.


Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."

In the next moment he stepped past and turned his back to a display on radiometric dating, the method by which scientists determine the age of rocks through the rate of decay of their natural radioactivity.

When later asked why he skipped the display, Jack said simply, "We can't cover everything."

(read or watch the segment, we found it highly amusing)

[swivel]

I understand this. However, is it a smaller percentage than 10 years ago? 20? Is the rate of acceptance actually decreasing? Also, don't you think this is testament to an educational failure, rather than a linguistic one? Adjusting the terminology used does nothing to address the root of the issue.

Other modernized nations don't have this problem (well, except for Turkey, but it barely counts). They don't call evolution a law in their text books - they stand up to the lunacy that is fundamentalist religion. We need educational standards that give a middle finger to the Protestants in this country. Let them pull their kids out of school, rather than dragging ours down with them.

That works, too.

I was just trying to be Christian about it.

[Athena]

I was just trying to be Christian about it.

Boooo, boooooo! :p

Your humor causes me to shake my head and make me smile at the same time.

Now, see? That'd be a post worthy of a groan from me, if it were my thing.

[CPL CHUD]

(read or watch the segment, we found it highly amusing)That sounds pretty typical. I tried looking up the clip but I guess it was either moved or deleted.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I found that the language The Diabolical Mr. Lieman chose to use weakened his argument. Calling terminology "invalid" would have been more persuasive but using terms like "piece of shit" and calling someone a "whore" are not much better than the people who come here posting that "U PPL DONT KNOW SHIT".

I am afraid I must concurr with my "god" swivel that nothing is ever totally sure but calling something "law" when current science shows it to be so is correct. Science is never rigid, things change and we learn more every day. Who knows, maybe someday we may find an instance where gravity does not work as we always thought it would. In anticipation of that event, does that mean calling it the "law of gravity" is also invalid?

Ugh. Im extremely exhausted, and its fucking late at night, so Ill make this brief.

First off, if my using foul language as I make points and back them up as to why Im making them, makes you liken the point to "U PPL DONT KNOW SSHIT" then thats your problem, not mine. Lady? If you can't deduct what is being said because I said whore, or piece of shit? Then you got a major fucking problem, much bigger than calling another poster here your "god". Kissing a little ass here to get a cheap Thanks may be impressive to you and some, but it isnt to me, so I guess we're even. ;)

HOWEVER---------point taken. I didn't have to call that whore a whore, and Mr. Thompson may only be a pile of trash, and not a piece of shit. No, seriously, all joking aside, it's the way I talk in real life. I dont have the fucking time or patience to worry about perceptions because of my foul mouth and foul typing fingers around here or anywhere else. I made the point, and you said the language weakened it, only if anything, you should've used the word distracted, because the point its self is rock solid, even if others here wont see it, because they themselves are so engaged in the culture war its self. :o If I were in a field where I had to make my point to try and actually sway someone's opinions here, or in any professional type of atmosphere, I wouldn't have used that language. But were talking about swiv, who says CHristianity is evil pretty much, and CPL, who has his mind perfectly made up, and Athena, who has scolded me ten fold over the phone and pretty much said Im a douche bag for believing what I do. :D They're posting buds, and I dont have to pretend to be more polite than I am around anyone here...they can think Im full of shit all day. This is my commentary, nothing more- only thing is, Im right. And I think, Im the only one being objective here.

I am not a creationist. I am not a scientist. I am fairly religious, yes, but I am not one of those guys who, because I believe there to be a God, will close my eyes to science...I love science. I am not involved in silly culture wars, hence I will not be drawn into silly debates about proving whether God is, or is not real, because it cannot be done, and I will not make this a Creationist vs/ Evolution thing, like it would be easy to do.

Simply...I think Clive Thompson's article is a poor one, made up of pure hypocrisy. And you say in your post:

totally sure but calling something "law" when current science shows it to be so is correct. Science is never rigid, things change and we learn more every day. Who knows, maybe someday we may find an instance where gravity does not work as we always thought it would. In anticipation of that event, does that mean calling it the "law of gravity"

Current science does NOT show macro evolution to be correct. If it DID show it to be correct, it WOULD be called Law. It has NOT been observed, and YES, that IS a criteria for something to be called scientific fact, I showed that already, and for those who say "how can we observe it, when it was billions of years old!?" , then you would have to REPRODUCE IT, to then observe it, ANOTHER something you have to be able to do to call it fact, and if we cant do those things, then how the fuck can we TEST IT!? We cant. Thats why its theory, babe.

I have nothing against any of this, or anyone thinking Im a flake. Im just saying....the topic Ive stayed on, is the article. Its a stupid one, IMO. Take out the whore and piece of shit, and see if you see it any different.....

[swivel]

I disagree that events have to be reproducible AND observed to become law.

All of particle physics is based on interactions that we will never observe. We will only ever see the formation of microbubbles in vapor chambers, which are just the by-product of subatomic particles. They are no different than fossils.

Also, there is no way we can re-create any of our grand-scale cosmology. We can't form a neutron star out of our own collapsing orb. We won't be able to accrete our solar system again to make sure it always happens the same way.

I think you are purposefully setting the bar impossibly high in order to protect the ontological gaps that you cling to in order to find purchase for your gods. I can't believe that you admit to being superstitious and also attempt to claim objectivity in the same post. I like you better when you are just spitting cuss words and getting angry...

[CPL CHUD]

The opppostion to evolutionary law prey on misunderstanding. Evolution has been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. Furthermore evolution doesn't have to be observed directly, much like most of science, it does have to yield predictions about what we'd expect from the fossil record, genetics, etc., and the number of accurate predictions made based off of evolutionary law are staggering; a virtual mountain of data so solid that nobody has ever been able to produce a more viable theory to outmode it's findings. Ever. If you want to be unfair in raising the bar to the qualifications of evolutionary law you'd still be in a loosing battle. Biology wouldn't make ANY SENSE without it, none at all.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I disagree that events have to be reproducible AND observed to become law.

All of particle physics is based on interactions that we will never observe. We will only ever see the formation of microbubbles in vapor chambers, which are just the by-product of subatomic particles. They are no different than fossils.

Also, there is no way we can re-create any of our grand-scale cosmology. We can't form a neutron star out of our own collapsing orb. We won't be able to accrete our solar system again to make sure it always happens the same way.

I think you are purposefully setting the bar impossibly high in order to protect the ontological gaps that you cling to in order to find purchase for your gods. I can't believe that you admit to being superstitious and also attempt to claim objectivity in the same post. I like you better when you are just spitting cuss words and getting angry...

Eeeeh, c'mon. :rolleyes:

As for accusing me of setting the bar impossibly high in order to protect my god(s), lol, that's a bunch of horseshit coming from someone who's neck deep in the hokey little war you got going on against religion. I can't take you seriously when you talk to me about my objectivity when you make accusations, and you discredit what I say because of what I believe. You and I? We don't have the same definition of objectivity, I'll tell you that right now.

As for your thing against observation being a part of scientific law? Every part of science revolves around it. Every definition speaks of observation. Your point on the cosmos? We observe it reproduce all the time. It's there. We watch it. Study it. Test theories by observation....its not the same as having fossils here in our hands, and not being able to truly identify macro evolution as law.

I have a beef with the article, and quite simply stated macro evolution has not been proven fact by any means, and as a result, predictably, and sadly so, Im doing this as a result of my superstitious agenda. And I cant be objective.

Hey. Maybe Im wrong. Maybe all the culture warriors ought to make linguistic schools, and study linguistic sumo wrestling, linguistic boxing and all kinds of cool things, so the language can be manipulated into getting everyone to believe what all the culture warriors WANT them to believe. I dunno.

Bottom line, I made my point, and I resent my point being shot down merely because I believe in a God.

It taints the whole conversation when the politics comes into play of things, and thats whats been done here, and thats what that punkass article did. I find it disgusting. And as for that smack about me cussing and getting angry? Ive behaved on this site so far, bro.

[swivel]

Fossils are evolutionary observations. DNA provides evolutionary observations.

You have an extreme bias (the opposite of objectivity), and I can respect that bias. What I do not respect is your closed mind coupled with your bragging about having an open mind and being objective.

You are being dishonest in this thread. You may disagree with me, but at least I tell you what I really believe. And when I make a statement about science, I use accurate descriptions. You seem to be making quite a bit up, and attempting to pass it off as holy writ. That tactic has no effect on me other than to make me want to walk away from the discussion, saddened by the lost conversation.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Fair enough. I'm sorry you feel that way. (edit-) But I've made nothing up, and everything I've said so far has been without agenda. Period.

[Dr. Salvador]

just for shits and giggles, i would like to point out the fact that I am Legend has already exposed lieman as an idiot in a previous thread about religion.

i , for one, am glad to see that leiman, is, in fact, still an idiot.

cheers!:D

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

just for shits and giggles, i would like to point out the fact that I am Legend has already exposed lieman as an idiot in a previous thread about religion.

i , for one, am glad to see that leiman, is, in fact, still an idiot.

cheers!:D

Oh, for Christ's sake.....


(how do ya like THAT pun?) :D


I Am Legend left the site for weeks after that, chickened the fuck out, then changed his fucking name because he was embarrassed. You fucking pussy. :o

[swivel]

Oh, for Christ's sake.....


(how do ya like THAT pun?) :D


I Am Legend left the site for weeks after that, chickened the fuck out, then changed his fucking name because he was embarrassed. You fucking pussy. :o

I would be embarrassed as well. It has been ~140 years since you were allowed to own another man in this country, and quite a social stigma has developed since then...

[CPL CHUD]

I would be embarrassed as well. It has been ~140 years since you were allowed to own another man in this country, and quite a social stigma has developed since then...

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

[celtic friend]

Excuse me if this has already been posted somewhere. While you guys go back and forth measuring each others dicks, there was an actual thread here, just joking, I just really wanted to sound like a tuff bitch for once. :p I know I am a dork forgive me....
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm


Micro and Macro Evolution



Gradualism

Throughout most of the 20th century, researchers developing the synthetic theory of evolution primarily focused on microevolution , which is slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. Until the 1970's, it was generally thought that these changes from generation to generation indicated that past species evolved gradually into other species over millions of years. This model of long term gradual change is usually referred to as gradualism or phyletic gradualism . It is essentially the 19th century Darwinian idea that species evolve slowly at a more or less steady rate. A natural consequence of this sort of macroevolution would be the slow progressive change of one species into the next in a line, as shown by the graph on the right.


Punctuated equilibrium
Beginning in the early 1970's, this model was challenged by Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, and other leading paleontologists . They asserted that there is sufficient fossil evidence to show that some species remained essentially the same for millions of years and then underwent short periods of very rapid, major change. Gould suggested that a more accurate model in such species lines would be punctuated equilibrium (illustrated by the graph on the left).


Long periods of stability and
short episodes of change
The punctuated, or rapid change periods, were presumably the result of major environmental changes in such things as predation pressure, food supply and climate. During these times, natural selection can favor varieties that were previously at a comparative disadvantage. The result can be an accelerated rate of change in gene pool frequencies in the direction of the varieties that become the most favored by the new environmental conditions. It would be expected that long severe droughts, major volcanic eruptions, and the beginning and ending of ice ages would be likely triggers for rapid evolution.

Random mutations provide variations that help a species survive. Mutations in regulator genes in particular can quickly result in radically new variations in the organization of the body and its important structures. As a consequence, changes in these genes can result in a greater likelihood that at least some individuals will have variations that will allow them to survive during times of extinction level events. In this situation, subsequent generations would be significantly changed from the generations before the period of severe natural selection. In other words, regulator genes probably play an important part in the rapid change phases of punctuated evolution.

It is now quite apparent that the evolutionary history of life on this planet is extremely complicated. Different species have evolved at different rates and those rates have changed through time in response to complex patterns of interaction with other species and other environmental factors. In addition, it is clear that most species lines have already become extinct as a result of their inability to adapt to changed conditions.


Origin of Species

Where do new species come from? That is a key question that the biological sciences have been asking for more than 200 years. Charles Darwin gave us part of the answer in his explanation of natural selection. The remainder came as a result of Gregor Mendel's experiments with basic genetic inheritance and the 20th century discoveries of the other natural processes that can cause evolution. We now know that evolution can occur in two different patterns--adaptive radiation into multiple species results in cladogenesis and successive speciation within a single evolutionary line results in anagenesis .


Adaptive radiation
resulting in cladogenesis Successive speciation
within a single species line
resulting in anagenesis

Adaptive radiation is the progressive diversification of a species into two or more species as groups adapt to different environments. Natural selection is usually the principle mechanism driving adaptive radiation. The initial step is the separation of a species into distinct breeding populations. This usually happens as a result of geographic or social isolation. Over time, the gene pools of the isolated populations diverge from each other by gradually acquiring different mutations and sometimes as a result of random genetic drift. When the populations are in dissimilar environments, environmental stresses are often not the same. As a result, nature selects for different traits existing within the gene pools of the populations. Over time, the populations genetically diverge enough so that they can no longer reproduce with each other. At this point, they have become separate species and usually continue to diverge in subsequent generations. In intermediate stages, the two newly or about to be separated species may be able to interbreed and produce children, but most of them are likely to be sterile. This is the case with the offspring of horses and donkeys--i.e., mules. Eventually, however, species genetically diverge so much that they are unable to produce any children. This is the case with sheep and cattle.

The evolution of species by successive speciation occurs within a single evolutionary line without the branching of adaptive radiation. This takes place when the members of a species consist of a single breeding population for many generations. Descendant generations experience continuous spontaneous mutations and new directions of natural selection as the environment changes. This results in progressive changes in the gene pool frequencies of the population. At any one time, all members of the population are the same species. However, as generations subsequently replace each other, the gene pool is transformed--i.e., it evolves. Eventually, the changes are great enough that if descendants could go back in time to mate with their distant ancestors, the genetic differences would prevent them from producing fertile offspring. In other words, they would be different species.

In the real world, the patterns of evolution can be very complex and changing. Both adaptive radiation and successive speciation can go on simultaneously.


Origin of Life

It may seem strange that the question of the ultimate origin of life on earth was not discussed at the beginning of this tutorial. It was an intended omission. The focus has been on the processes by which living things change through time, not on how life first came about. These are separate issues. A consideration of ultimate origins bridges into the realm of religion for many people. Regardless of whether you believe that life began spontaneously as a result of natural processes or was due to divine intervention, it is sobering to realize that science is close to being able to create life out of non-living substances. In fact, most of the initial steps have already been taken. The video linked below shows just how close we are to creating living organisms.

Artificial Life--excerpt from the PBS series Nova Science Now (October 18, 2005)
This link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click the "back" button
on your browser program.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page was last updated on Monday, October 15, 2007.
Copyright © 1997-2006 by Dennis O'Neil. All rights reserved.
Illustration credits

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I would be embarrassed as well. It has been ~140 years since you were allowed to own another man in this country, and quite a social stigma has developed since then...


(clasps hand over face)

Heh?

So does that make him the stay at home husband then?

[swivel]

So does that make him the stay at home husband then?

Do you really think that another man, backing slowly away from an injured, rabid beast is surrendering? The way I saw it, you were left for dead and the hunter went to a safer patch of wood.

Hell, if you keep the crazy-level up where you have been since Athena went into estrus, I'll be the next dude wandering off to a bit of greener pasture. This place has gotten crazy since you two started having phone sex, or whatever it is you kids do these days...

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Do you really think that another man, backing slowly away from an injured, rabid beast is surrendering? The way I saw it, you were left for dead and the hunter went to a safer patch of wood.

Hell, if you keep the crazy-level up where you have been since Athena went into estrus, I'll be the next dude wandering off to a bit of greener pasture. This place has gotten crazy since you two started having phone sex, or whatever it is you kids do these days...

What a gem.

[DA Devil's Advocate]

I would be embarrassed as well. It has been ~140 years since you were allowed to own another man in this country, and quite a social stigma has developed since then...

Not to divert the thread, while it is true that it has been 140 years since you were ALLOWED to own another man in this country it is still legal to own another man in this country.

[Raq me darkly]

Not to divert the thread, while it is true that it has been 140 years since you were ALLOWED to own another man in this country it is still legal to own another man in this country.

If I recall correctly, Mississippi did not repeal slavery until 1995. I seem to recall Michael Moore's TV Nation doing a bit on this, having a black man with a white slave in Mississippi.

[swivel]

If I recall correctly, Mississippi did not repeal slavery until 1995. I seem to recall Michael Moore's TV Nation doing a bit on this, having a black man with a white slave in Mississippi.

For that entire period, it was not up to Mississippi to decide. It was a Federal issue, so even though one backwards State still didn't repeal their law, that doesn't mean the rule was still in effect.

[Waldowas]

Are we winning in the United States? Less than half our population thinks that evolution occurs. Not natural selection... Evolution!

Hm, actually doesn't sound too promising... :dontknow:

The new anti-science assault on US schools

In a disturbing trend, anti-evolution campaigners are combining with climate change deniers to undermine public education





Sunday 12 February 2012 14.00 GMT





http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/01/14/darwin.article.jpg

Charles Darwin, circa 1854: 12 February, his birthday, is marked by International Darwin Day (http://darwinday.org/). Photograph: Corbis

You might have thought it was all over after the 2005 decision by the US district court of Middle Pennsylvania (pdf) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pamd.uscourts.gov%2Fkitzmille r%2Fkitzmiller_342.pdf&ei=NoQ1T7HbE-ey0QXjhcWiCA&usg=AFQjCNHNeMihoDFb2Y8JTEGGge6p_fRkUg), which ruled in the case of the Dover Area schools (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/schools) that teaching intelligent design (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/12/new-anti-science-assault-us-schools#) is unconstitutional. You might have guessed that they wouldn't come back after the 1987 US supreme court decision in Edwards v Aguillard (http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/edwards-v-aguillard), which deemed the teaching of creationism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/creationism) in Louisiana schools unconstitutional. Or maybe you figured that the opponents of evolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/evolution) had their Waterloo in the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial).

They are back. There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year (http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/evolution_state_news.html): two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it's only February.

For the most part, the authors of these bills are singing a song we've heard before. Jerry Bergevin, the Republican sponsor of one of the New Hampshire bills, says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/jerry-bergevin-evolution-columbine-nazis_n_1179589.html) of evolution that "It's a worldview and it's godless." He blames the teaching of evolution for Nazism and Columbine. Josh Brecheen, the sponsor of the Oklahoma bill, wants to stop the teaching of "the religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion) of evolution." These legislators, and their colleagues in Missouri and Indiana, trot out the hoary line that evolution is "just a theory" and that real science means saying that every point of view is just as good as any other.

Source and more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/12/new-anti-science-assault-us-schools

And this:

The Republicans are now the anti-science party

On climate change and evolution, the party's presidential hopefuls are wilfully ignorant

Jon Huntsman Jr, a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn't a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that's too bad, because Mr Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the Republican party in the United States, namely, that it is becoming the "anti-science party". This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

To see what Mr Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the Republican nomination: Rick Perry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rick-perry) and Mitt Romney (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mittromney).

Read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/04/evolution-climate-republicans-president

And last but not least:

The USA: World Leader In Anti-Science...

Seeded on Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:01 PM EST


http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=carloz907C425F-7C85-2A99-FF5A-AA2DBAA32128.jpg&width=380

...leading the race into a new scientific dark age.

Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.

She confessed that she was now "scared to death" by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.

"We are sliding back into a dark era," she said. "And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms."

The rest of the story: http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/19/10450576-the-usa-world-leader-in-anti-science

Not too good indeed... :rolleyes2:

[Rockin Ma]

You mean an experiment like this one?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html


Man, they wiped out the lizards that were there first completely! That is sad :(

[TheMorningStar]

Man, they wiped out the lizards that were there first completely! That is sad :(
Because of the surprising rate of adaption (evolution), introduction of non native species is nothing but trouble.