Darwin foes link Global Warming to Evolution. WTF?

[TheDoc9]

This is some great entertainment. Neither of you guys actually said anything, instead you try and make yourselves look smart by ignoring/changing my argument. If evolution doesn't include the first creation of life(single celled organisms, arcording to the theory), what theory does?

Which one(s) can(can't) be explained by evolution? None, no one's proven that they were caused by evolution.

 

[TheDoc9]

Abiogenesis - nice, what a beautiful way to insulate evolution from itself. Basically, your evolution theory stays intact because no one can explain how life was ever created from non-life matter, so you create a separate theory for it! Thanks, I can't wait to read about this!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is some great entertainment.

Indeed it is.

Neither of you guys actually said anything, instead you try and make yourselves look smart by ignoring/changing my argument.

Which argument? All you posted was an irrelevant demand. You might as well ask for "proof" that I was born in order to establish that I can and do in fact breathe.

It doesn't matter how life began, or if it began at all. We know that the world's biota are related via common ancestry. Get used to it.

If evolution doesn't include the first creation of life(single celled organisms, arcording to the theory), what theory does?

I don't really care. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that life has a beginning at all. There is quite a good bit of research being done on the subject, however. See this article.

And generally speaking, nobody really thinks that cellular life was the "beginning" of life.

Which one(s) can(can't) be explained by evolution? None, no one's proven that they were caused by evolution.

When you answered your own question "none," were you answering the "can" version, or the "can't" version? Suffice it to say, evolution explains all of them. Finally, it's generally improper to talk about evolution as a "cause." Evolution is what happens when imperfect replicators reproduce. It's a result, therefore.

Got any new ones?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Abiogenesis - nice, what a beautiful way to insulate evolution from itself.

You are invited to explain how an absence of a confirmed means of abiogenesis pertains in the slightest to what we know about the life that does exist. If in fact the very first life was jump started by a supernatural being, it would make no difference, because evolution was deduced from life that already exists. However it got here, its here and it evolves.

Basically, your evolution theory stays intact because no one can explain how life was ever created from non-life matter, so you create a separate theory for it!

I'd be very interested in how you objectively determine which matter is "living" and which is not. Please, enlighten us.

Thanks, I can't wait to read about this!

I suspect you do very, very little reading on the subject.

 

[CitizenKain]

This is some great entertainment. Neither of you guys actually said anything, instead you try and make yourselves look smart by ignoring/changing my argument. If evolution doesn't include the first creation of life(single celled organisms, arcording to the theory), what theory does?

Which one(s) can(can't) be explained by evolution? None, no one's proven that they were caused by evolution.

But a book used by a death cult written by a bunch of madmen has all the answers then. Once again, just because you can't understand science, doesn't mean scientists don't.

 

[TheDoc9]

When you answered your own question "none," were you answering the "can" version, or the "can't" version? Suffice it to say, evolution explains all of them.

You pick, I was making fun of your previous post with that one.

Finally, it's generally improper to talk about evolution as a "cause." Evolution is what happens when imperfect replicators reproduce. It's a result, therefore.

What's ironic about the authors on books like the selfish gene is that they probably never get laid.

I'd be very interested in how you objectively determine which matter is "living" and which is not. Please, enlighten us.

This comes down to a belief, I stick to the science 101 definition myself.

I suspect you do very, very little reading on the subject.

Actually I did a quick wiki read, it was everything I already knew. I just lumped it into evolution. I guess now that I know the word abiogenesis it will help explain my arguments to people who are more rooted in science.

In any case, why do you believe in it so completely?

 

[TheDoc9]

But a book used by a death cult written by a bunch of madmen has all the answers then. Once again, just because you can't understand science, doesn't mean scientists don't.

Seriously, death cult?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You pick, I was making fun of your previous post with that one.

It would help if you could write in coherent sentences.

What's ironic about the authors on books like the selfish gene is that they probably never get laid.

Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?

This comes down to a belief, I stick to the science 101 definition myself.

It would be unfortunately typical that you wouldn't be aware of the difficulties scientists have in making that definition, because generally those deliberations happen much beyond the 101 level.

Actually I did a quick wiki read, it was everything I already knew.

It would also be typical that the totality of your knowledge on the subject could be enveloped within a single wiki article.

I just lumped it into evolution.

Which is completely erroneous.

I guess now that I know the word abiogenesis it will help explain my arguments to people who are more rooted in science.

Feel free to start any time.

In any case, why do you believe in it so completely?

In which? Evolution or abiogenesis? As I said before, I'm not convinced that life had a beginning. Evolution is a fact that remains regardless.

 

[woolfe9999]

No one ever said that both theories had to come in the same context in the same classroom.

"Flat earth theory" is quite obviously a topic that should be taught in history. Creationism is a topic that should be taught in a world religions class (which IS (at least in California) and SHOULD BE a requirement for public highschools). Only a fool would suggest Creationism should be taught in a science classroom. But the fact that its opposing theory is more a question of biology does not mean that one or the other should not be taught.

Ignoring the other side of the coin, whether you feel it is equally valid, is not a good way to go about teaching.

Should we never discuss our failures or the failures of our ancestors? Whether you feel theories that fly in the face of abject evolution must be religious in nature, you cannot ignore the fact that the possibility exists or that other people have supposed that the possibility exists. If someone is ultimately able to prove that sentient life can be created from goo, you still cannot ignore that at some point, people thought otherwise. To do so leaves a massive hole in your education.

<snide remark>
Of course, the liberal adgenda is to never let anyone learn or know anything that they don't believe is the "truth" or "accepted fact", even if it is just from a purly informative or historical point of view and not intended to be taken as fact.
</snide remark>

I don't disagree with you on this, that creationism can be taught in a class about world religions, provided that such a course complies with the First Amendment establishment clause, i.e. with separation of church and state. And I don't disagree with teaching flat earth in a history course. But that is a diversion to the topic at hand, because the legislation in question wants to introduce "intelligent design theory" - a psuedoscience - into science education, to be posed as an alternative to teaching evolution. That is the issue at hand, and that is where I have a problem. I don't think students should be taught pseudoscience as alternatives to science in some faux attempt to be "even handed."

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

I think it's poorly worded, however whether it's a good idea or not depends on how it's handled.

Cerpin Text makes a good point when he says that evolution is accepted in scientific circles, however he also mentions that the proof is incomplete.

There's no serious challenge to it, but one of the problems with human nature is that we tend to parrot what is "true" without questioning it.

Evolution = science = truth. Why is it true? Who cares? It's science!

That's not critical thinking.

Now I would be concerned about this being a "backdoor" problem, as Wolf does, however there is a clause about not endorsing religion.

If it's done well, there is value to questioning that which we take for granted. That's why the world is not "flat" today.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. "Evolution" is controversial within science, but the controversies are narrower than the overarching question of whether there is mutation/selection driven evolution because that is not anywhere in dispute. I am not arguing that anything should be taken as gospel, but when science is wholly supportive of something, there is nothing else to discuss with students when teaching a science class. If you want to teach "intelligent design," the door to the religion class is down the hall (if you're a private school that is, religion can be learned elsewhere if you're on public expense unless religion is being explained in a historical context.) Insofar as teaching evolution, there are of course disagreements about particularities, i.e. gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. There are plenty of controversies, and those are the controversies you teach.

How exactly do you think evolution should be handled in schools?

- wolf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How exactly do you think evolution should be handled in schools?

IMO they need to teach that evolution in no way explains the origins of life. Teach what we know and be honest about what we don't know. That's my 2 cents.

 

[Elfear]

IMO they need to teach that evolution in no way explains the origins of life. Teach what we know and be honest about what we don't know. That's my 2 cents.

+1

I have no problem with evolution being taught in that matter.

 

[kage69]

Abiogenesis - nice, what a beautiful way to insulate evolution from itself. Basically, your evolution theory stays intact because no one can explain how life was ever created from non-life matter, so you create a separate theory for it! Thanks, I can't wait to read about this!

Someone doesn't understand natural selection as a evolutionary mechanism. Hurry up and do that reading.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It would help if you could write in coherent sentences.



Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?




It would be unfortunately typical that you wouldn't be aware of the difficulties scientists have in making that definition, because generally those deliberations happen much beyond the 101 level.


It would also be typical that the totality of your knowledge on the subject could be enveloped within a single wiki article.


Which is completely erroneous.


Feel free to start any time.


In which? Evolution or abiogenesis? As I said before, I'm not convinced that life had a beginning. Evolution is a fact that remains regardless.

I'm going to up one on this and say that abiogenesis has been proven as the transition from the compuunds in the suggested environment DID create RNA which is a precursor to DNA and any geneticist will tell you that evolving similar compuonds happen every day. even without intervention.

That said, he's correct, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution nor is evolution IN ANY WAY dependent on an origin.

People who spout sheit like that should be baneed from the internet based on the principle of general ignorance.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

IMO they need to teach that evolution in no way explains the origins of life. Teach what we know and be honest about what we don't know. That's my 2 cents.

They also need to teach that the second WW doesn't explain the theory of gravity.

It is just as fucking relevant.

The theory of Abiogenesis is the best one there is, it's proficient enough to be taught as a fact as it is, there is no doubt about that.

Perhaps you should educate yourself before you spout off?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. "Evolution" is controversial within science, but the controversies are narrower than the overarching question of whether there is mutation/selection driven evolution because that is not anywhere in dispute. I am not arguing that anything should be taken as gospel, but when science is wholly supportive of something, there is nothing else to discuss with students when teaching a science class. If you want to teach "intelligent design," the door to the religion class is down the hall (if you're a private school that is, religion can be learned elsewhere if you're on public expense unless religion is being explained in a historical context.) Insofar as teaching evolution, there are of course disagreements about particularities, i.e. gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. There are plenty of controversies, and those are the controversies you teach.

How exactly do you think evolution should be handled in schools?

- wolf

I have a PhD in cellular biology and my wife has the same degree in molecular genetics. Neither one of us argues for religious doctrine to be taught as science, so you can disabuse any notion of that being the case.

The difference between evolution and the physical sciences is that the latter can largely be confirmed by experimentation. One can demonstrate that an electron has a specific charge. You can show that the world is round.

Evolution is qualitatively different in that it's based on empirical evidence. That's not bad, it just is. Unless one is virtually immortal evolution cannot be observed. Speciation isn't going to happen before your eyes because you want it to.

That leads to places like the Creation Museum and the like. Well, I can teach evolution however just going over the fossil record and saying that it's true doesn't prepare one for questions down the road. The public is horrendously ignorant of much, and saying "I know it's true because you are stupid" (and let's face it, much arguing is done on internet forums in this manner) does nothing. Regurgitating facts isn't an intellectual exercise either. An understanding of evolution AND how arguments against it are fallacious is most beneficial. That means that an understanding of where our evidence is hazy is useful.

I'll toss this out.

Explain in the context of evolution (and please cite specifics- "it was advantageous" isn't an answer) how the vertebrate clotting cascade developed.

 

[werepossum]

I have a PhD in cellular biology and my wife has the same degree in molecular genetics. Neither one of us argues for religious doctrine to be taught as science, so you can disabuse any notion of that being the case.

The difference between evolution and the physical sciences is that the latter can largely be confirmed by experimentation. One can demonstrate that an electron has a specific charge. You can show that the world is round.

Evolution is qualitatively different in that it's based on empirical evidence. That's not bad, it just is. Unless one is virtually immortal evolution cannot be observed. Speciation isn't going to happen before your eyes because you want it to.

That leads to places like the Creation Museum and the like. Well, I can teach evolution however just going over the fossil record and saying that it's true doesn't prepare one for questions down the road. The public is horrendously ignorant of much, and saying "I know it's true because you are stupid" (and let's face it, much arguing is done on internet forums in this manner) does nothing. Regurgitating facts isn't an intellectual exercise either. An understanding of evolution AND how arguments against it are fallacious is most beneficial. That means that an understanding of where our evidence is hazy is useful.

I'll toss this out.

Explain in the context of evolution (and please cite specifics- "it was advantageous" isn't an answer) how the vertebrate clotting cascade developed.

I can't touch that. Things like this are why ID is called "G-d of the gaps", because there are numerous things we can't yet begin to explain using evolutionary theory. I do know that other ID claims, like the irreducible complexity of the eye, can be largely set aside because of the many different forms and complexities of eyes available, from rudimentary light sensing skin cells to fully formed and advanced self-adjusting mammalian or avian eyes, and the fact that many proteins can do different things if stimulated in different ways. That makes me suspect that one day we might understand this too.

I have no problem with some basic ID concepts and the better arguments against evolution being taught, as long as it is a sidebar that doesn't take up much class time. I think within that constraint it might be useful - though perhaps even more so to the pro-evolutionists as an argument against evolution becomes understood in the next breakthrough. While we can never totally rule out ID or even a 6,000 year old Earth, studying evolution is useful in and of itself. ID is merely interesting, useful only in pointing out some of the problems in evolutionary theory which need to be solved, so putting evolution and ID on the same footing would just be silly.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I have a PhD in cellular biology and my wife has the same degree in molecular genetics. Neither one of us argues for religious doctrine to be taught as science, so you can disabuse any notion of that being the case.

The difference between evolution and the physical sciences is that the latter can largely be confirmed by experimentation. One can demonstrate that an electron has a specific charge. You can show that the world is round.

You are bullshitting here, evolution is very much a physical science and it has been demonstrated in real time. That you don't get biology isn't an excuse for your complete and utter ignorance of the phenomena of mutation and it's progressions.

That fact, that there is physical evidence for evolution pretty much destroys the rest of your post as much as it did the previous part of your post.

Evolution IS a physical science.

 

[werepossum]

You are bullshitting here, evolution is very much a physical science and it has been demonstrated in real time. That you don't get biology isn't an excuse for your complete and utter ignorance of the phenomena of mutation and it's progressions.

That fact, that there is physical evidence for evolution pretty much destroys the rest of your post as much as it did the previous part of your post.

Evolution IS a physical science.

Dude, you just accused a cellular biologist of not "getting biology"! Read that again, he wasn't denying evolution, but rather pointing out the limitations in evolutionary science. One simply can't sit down and reproducibly produce speciation in any higher creature in real time, as one could, say, verify the structure of DNA or a hydrogen atom.

Speciation is not the act of causing an organism to express different characteristics, nor even to mutate. It is the act of organisms changing from one genetically identifiable set of creatures into another stable, reproducing, divergent, genetically identifiable set of creatures. This is harder than it sounds because the very definition of "species" is not universally accepted and indeed is largely an artificial construct due to our need to classify things. The closest we can come to evolution in real time would be the very small organisms such as bacteria, which are generally genetically very plastic anyway, and hybridization. We can make bacteria mutate, or exchange genetic material, or cease expressing one characteristic and begin expressing another, but bacteria species are largely statistical boundary classifications anyway, and since reversing conditions tends to reverse the observed divergence, it's not exactly watching evolution in real time. Hybridization can occur in the wild, but requires two organisms close enough to breed. For plants this isn't too difficult, but observing the new species become truly isolated and divergent is quite difficult in experimental terms. We can see things like Tremblay's Salamander, but there again it's not yet a true divergent species as it is all female and requires a parent species to reproduce. (Although this one MIGHT become a true species within the lifetime of the scientists studying it.) Thus hybridization is at best a special subclass of speciation. HR is just pointing out the differences between evolution and harder sciences.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Dude, you just accused a cellular biologist of not "getting biology"! Read that again, he wasn't denying evolution, but rather pointing out the limitations in evolutionary science. One simply can't sit down and reproducibly produce speciation in any higher creature in real time, as one could, say, verify the structure of DNA or a hydrogen atom.

One cannot? One HAS! The transition has been verifiably observed IN laboratory, I know i should keep notes of this shit but if i ever did i'd lose them, just search it.

The rest i won't reproduce to save you from further embarressment.

It does bloody well suck that i can't use any search engines though, but i can urge you to use one and read about it, "species evolution" should suffice. and don't use the quotation marks.

I am not shitting you, one species has been observed to evolve into another species in real time.

 

[werepossum]

One cannot? One HAS! The transition has been verifiably observed IN laboratory, I know i should keep notes of this shit but if i ever did i'd lose them, just search it.

The rest i won't reproduce to save you from further embarressment.

It does bloody well suck that i can't use any search engines though, but i can urge you to use one and read about it, "species evolution" should suffice. and don't use the quotation marks.

I am not shitting you, one species has been observed to evolve into another species in real time.

You should really read my post (and HR's post) more carefully, but again, I cannot sit down with my Microthrix parvicella, make it evolve into Microthrix whitfieldi, and publish my experiment details and results so that other people can make Microthrix whitfieldi too, as I could do with, say, detecting the polarization of a particular molecule or measuring a particular rate of oxidation. Evolution simply doesn't work like that - which was Hayabusa's quite clear and incontrovertible point, that evolutionary biology is (at least largely) an empirical science. (The notable exception of course being hybridization which, outside of polyploidal organisms, does work like that - but then, hybridization is not a driving force in evolutionary biology as it cannot possibly ever lead to different genuses, much less kingdoms.)

 

[Gardener]

No one ever said that both theories had to come in the same context in the same classroom.

"Flat earth theory" is quite obviously a topic that should be taught in history. Creationism is a topic that should be taught in a world religions class (which IS (at least in California) and SHOULD BE a requirement for public highschools). Only a fool would suggest Creationism should be taught in a science classroom. But the fact that its opposing theory is more a question of biology does not mean that one or the other should not be taught.

Every creationist I have met wants Intelligent Design taught on an equal footing with evolution in Public School Biology class.

Yours is a fringe view. However mainstream creationists appreciate your support in weakening America.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You should really read my post (and HR's post) more carefully, but again, I cannot sit down with my Microthrix parvicella, make it evolve into Microthrix whitfieldi, and publish my experiment details and results so that other people can make Microthrix whitfieldi too, as I could do with, say, detecting the polarization of a particular molecule or measuring a particular rate of oxidation. Evolution simply doesn't work like that - which was Hayabusa's quite clear and incontrovertible point, that evolutionary biology is (at least largely) an empirical science. (The notable exception of course being hybridization which, outside of polyploidal organisms, does work like that - but then, hybridization is not a driving force in evolutionary biology as it cannot possibly ever lead to different genuses, much less kingdoms.)

It's cute and half of it doesn't make any sense.

But in reality, this isn't about hybridisation, it's about speciation, and species of bacteria exist and observation of mutation from one species to another has been observed in real time.

I don't know why we just can't say that speciation has been observed?

Clashes with yer faith, does it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You should really read my post (and HR's post) more carefully, but again, I cannot sit down with my Microthrix parvicella, make it evolve into Microthrix whitfieldi, and publish my experiment details and results so that other people can make Microthrix whitfieldi too, as I could do with, say, detecting the polarization of a particular molecule or measuring a particular rate of oxidation. Evolution simply doesn't work like that - which was Hayabusa's quite clear and incontrovertible point, that evolutionary biology is (at least largely) an empirical science. (The notable exception of course being hybridization which, outside of polyploidal organisms, does work like that - but then, hybridization is not a driving force in evolutionary biology as it cannot possibly ever lead to different genuses, much less kingdoms.)

I didn't believe what I posted was a difficult concept
Of course I don't do research anymore since I fell back on my undergrad degree, but that doesn't mean I have forgotten the basics, and my wife's field changes constantly. You can make a mammal glow in the dark, You can mutate the hell out of fruit flies. That doesn't mean that we've created something which mimics natural processes and have created a new species by natural selection. For our purposes I'll define a species as one which can only reproduce and have fertile offspring with other organisms which are close enough genetically to do so. Yes, I realize that the definition is somewhat arbitrary, nevertheless we need some metric.

John, I hate to tell you, but in any lab I've ever seen I can't create an ecosystem and watch natural processes create a new species. If you know of one, let us know.

I can however measure the speed of light. I can measure the period of a pendulum. I can determine what the physical constants of the universe are, and I can do it repeatedly.

Ok, tell me what aspect of evolutionary science corresponds to Millikan's oil drop experiment? How about one that shows that birds came from dinosaurs in the same qualitative way that experiments which have determined the half-lives of radioactive elements were performed?

Evolution came to be a valid theory not by reproducible experiments in a lab, but by a synthesis of geological record, field observations of habitats and the correlation of phenotypes and environmental conditions, and a grasp of basic genetics.

That doesn't mean it's not a valid theory, it just means it isn't something you can put under a metaphorical microscope.

What's your beef with that?

 

[werepossum]

It's cute and half of it doesn't make any sense.

But in reality, this isn't about hybridisation, it's about speciation, and species of bacteria exist and observation of mutation from one species to another has been observed in real time.

I don't know why we just can't say that speciation has been observed?

Clashes with yer faith, does it?

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that Hayabusa Rider was correct in saying that evolutionary science is an empirical science. Empirical means that you observe something happening (or something that exists) and make deductions from those observations. For instance, one cannot take Halobacterium salinarum and devise a repeatable experiment whereby it is induced to evolve into H. cutirubrum (or vice versa); it simply cannot be done. It doesn't mean that one didn't come from the other or that they didn't diverge from a common ancestor, it simply means that evolution does not work on those laws and within man's timetable. Again, that has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary biology, it's simply a limitation of the science.

I've read white papers and articles about one species diverging into another under experimental pressure, but again, these are bacteria and similar creatures that are quite genetically plastic anyway, and not every evolutionary biologist agrees that in fact these experiments are speciation. (Ever read systematics on a particular bacterium? It's a nightmare, which is why even experts often identify bacteria only to the genus unless there is a true need to go further.) But even if the experiments are considered valid, this does not change the fact that evolutionary biology (chemistry, etc.) is by nature an empirical science. Observing speciation is still an empirical science. Being able to devise repeatable experiments whereby one can take one species, introduce given forcing factors, and get a second (or multiple) divergent, stable, reproducing species would be required to go beyond that. Even if (when?) we reach that level with bacteria, most organisms have life cycles far too long for that to be possible, so evolution must remain an empirical science.

Once again, Hayabusa Rider's point was NOT that evolution is a false science. It was merely that it is an empirical science.