Rick Perry shaken up by Obama’s disturbing threat to governors in meeting

[MrPickins]

evolutionist

That's not a word.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

G-d

I've seen this before...what's the point of not typing God?

 

[feralkid]

I've seen this before...what's the point of not typing God?

Making a hyperlink to the almighty is frowned upon in many religions.

 

[Retro Rob]

Granted, it's always possible that G-d created the Earth 6,000 years ago and made it look a few billion years old just to mess with us, but that would make G-d a real dick.

LOL -- I can't even force myself to believe something as ridiculous as that, though...even if I tried.

At that level of uncertainty, science becomes useless to us, whereas if we accept evolution and gravity as absolute truth, then we can extrapolate useful things.

...but no one denies gravity, yet some (many) reject evolution. Maybe the evidence isn't as cut-and-dried, (meaning, being more difficult to demonstrate than the existence of gravity) because gravity can literally be tested by a freaking toddler.

Just my two cents. ()

 

[MrPickins]

because gravity is continually tested by every freaking toddler.

Fixed that for you. :biggrin:

 

[Retro Rob]

Fixed that for you. :biggrin:

Indeed. :thumbsup:

 

[alzan]

LOL -- I can't even force myself to believe something as ridiculous as that, though...even if I tried.



...but no one denies gravity, yet some (many) reject evolution. Maybe the evidence isn't as cut-and-dried, (meaning, being more difficult to demonstrate than the existence of gravity) because gravity can literally be tested by a freaking toddler.

Just my two cents. ()

Many reject evolution because of their religious faith and/or lack of understanding, bad teaching in school, etc..

But here's the thing to remember: gravity and evolution are both scientific theories; both theories follow the exact same rules to be proven or disproven. Scientists, be they biologists, cosmologists, etc. have to follow those rules as they work to prove/disprove their own or someone else's hypothesis.

To say that you accept the theory of gravity but not the theory of evolution is nonsensical since they both follow the rules and dictums of a scientific theory. You may not like what evolutionary theory says about common descent and the mutation of species but that doesn't mean the theory and the proof thereof is incorrect.

 

[norseamd]

Many reject evolution because of their religious faith and/or lack of understanding, bad teaching in school, etc.. But here's the thing to remember: gravity and evolution are both scientific theories; both theories follow the exact same rules to be proven or disproven. Scientists, be they biologists, cosmologists, etc. have to follow those rules as they work to prove/disprove their own or someone else's hypothesis. To say that you accept the theory of gravity but not the theory of evolution is nonsensical since they both follow the rules and dictums of a scientific theory. You may not like what evolutionary theory says about common descent and the mutation of species but that doesn't mean the theory and the proof thereof is incorrect.

is it possible to bring this scientific method to physics or anthropology?

(yes i know both cover what was said but neither amazing had to do with the two topics otherwise being discussed. i hate to give ammunition to ignoramuses but it is a valid point)

 

[Jhhnn]

Thank you for making my point. As always, unwittingly, but still, thanks.

You seem to imagine that you have some point, other than derision.

Let's review. From the linked piece in the OP-

Perry was describing a meeting at the White House earlier that day between several governors and President Obama.
“When you have governors, and we all compete against each other — we are the laboratories of innovation — and for the President of the United States to look Democrat and Republican governors in the eye and say, ‘I do not trust you to make decisions in your state about issues of education, about transportation infrastructure,’ — and that is really troubling,” he said.


Lemme see... Perry is whining about federal money coming into Texas schools, some of the most poorly funded in the nation, because there are strings attached. Any governor in a similar position who was disinterested in posturing & pandering to an anti-education base would just take the money & STFU while shifting other funds to fill in where desired.

Not Perry. Not you, either.

 

[alzan]

is it possible to bring this scientific method to physics or anthropology?

(yes i know both cover what was said but neither amazing had to do with the two topics otherwise being discussed. i hate to give ammunition to ignoramuses but it is a valid point)

Of course and my bad; I just didn't want to give an exhaustive list of all sciences. I was trying to keep it to the two theories that seem to be (in this and similar threads) compared.

 

[norseamd]

the main point i am making is that most mainstream psysicists will scream and shout if you say anything that contradicts einstein at all. even if you throw it out as a theoritical thought or even just a philosiphical one. einsteins had trouble with quantum teleportation (and so do i so it seems intuitive) and somehow the general deification of einstein himself continues. even einstein would likely critisize them. wondering if they are somehow waiting for a chance to discredit quantum teleportation in a instant chance even though it likely will never come.

anthropology has issues that are widely noted by some. believe they was some crap that went down with a scientist down in the amazon with natives and his career was ruined. not saying the scientist was right. also pure equalists make a fuss over everything (not saying most humans are not mostly alike). also the out of africa bandwagoneers must be having a fit right now. wonder what might go on with the indo ayrans and the steppe culture right now if anatolia or the caucausus might be the right place for indo ayran origins. but the steppe theory does have some credibiltiy.

 

[alzan]

the main point i am making is that most mainstream psysicists will scream and shout if you say anything that contradicts einstein at all. even if you throw it out as a theoritical thought or even just a philosiphical one. einsteins had trouble with quantum teleportation (and so do i so it seems intuitive) and somehow the general deification of einstein himself continues. even einstein would likely critisize them. wondering if they are somehow waiting for a chance to discredit quantum teleportation in a instant chance even though it likely will never come.

anthropology has issues that are widely noted by some. believe they was some crap that went down with a scientist down in the amazon with natives and his career was ruined. not saying the scientist was right. also pure equalists make a fuss over everything (not saying most humans are not mostly alike). also the out of africa bandwagoneers must be having a fit right now. wonder what might go on with the indo ayrans and the steppe culture right now if anatolia or the caucausus might be the right place for indo ayran origins. but the steppe theory does have some credibiltiy.

Indeed. Reminds me of how in the early and mid 20th century Freud was revered and even deified by some and woe be anyone who question his methods and findings. I think he was right about some things but completely off base in others.

Myself I lean towards Carl Jung and his methods but don't deify him.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I guess all those Indian engineers should be sent back to India?

We do not want those Hindus or Sikhs working in chemical plants now do we?

Why? Most of them believe in the theory of evolution.

"Most God-believing Hindus accept the theory of biological evolution.[9][10][11] They either regard the scriptural creation theories as allegories and metaphors, or reconcile these legends with the modern theory of evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution#Attempts_to_reconcile_evolution

As I understand it Sikhs don't have any problems with it either.

 

[norseamd]

Why? Most of them believe in the theory of evolution. "Most God-believing Hindus accept the theory of biological evolution.[9][10][11] They either regard the scriptural creation theories as allegories and metaphors, or reconcile these legends with the modern theory of evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_v...cile_evolution As I understand it Sikhs don't have any problems with it either.

neither of them are as fundamental as christians except when it comes to the more noble philosiphical ideas of religion. like sikh warrior tradition. actually hindus do have some problems. like caste racism and more. but most hindus who immigrate to america are likely more liberal

 

[HomerJS]

I notice nobody really believes Perry's account of meeting.

Probably having one of his "episodes"

 

[werepossum]

I've seen this before...what's the point of not typing God?

I used to spend a LOT of time on Jewish theology boards, and it's a common convention so out of politeness I adopted it. It's based on the prohibition on saying or writing God's name - which is odd since that isn't His name, to the point such a being can have a name. Also odd that I habitually write G-d but also god - sort of a technicality?

On the bonus side, it drives some proggies batty. Um, battier. So there's that.

Making a hyperlink to the almighty is frowned upon in many religions.

LOL That's actually better than my explanation.

LOL -- I can't even force myself to believe something as ridiculous as that, though...even if I tried.

...but no one denies gravity, yet some (many) reject evolution. Maybe the evidence isn't as cut-and-dried, (meaning, being more difficult to demonstrate than the existence of gravity) because gravity can literally be tested by a freaking toddler.

Just my two cents. ()

I suspect you are correct, and your toddler analogy is spot-on. Also, some of it is faith and some of it is just pure ignorance. I've been told many times about the number of proteins and other compounds that must be produced to make a functional eye, all of which are wasted energy unless all are made and thus, impossible to come about spontaneously. Granted, eyes are somewhere on the scale of mysteries, although many of those compounds are used for other things in more primitive life forms. I've also ofttimes heard complaints that no transitional creatures are ever found. But when one looks close, most life forms are transitional, or at least virtually every order and family has them. Even the vaunted eye runs the gamut from simple light-sensitive subcutaneous cells to the incredible eyes of eagles and owls and geckos and squid and my personal favorite, the mantis shrimp. We've got cyanobacteria that aren't quite bacteria or algae or protozoans, micro plants that are motile, macro land plants with swimming sperm, fish that reproduce via cloning or change sex. We can't even agree on how many freakin' kingdoms there are. Within even well know families of advanced creatures we've got mammals that are poisonous egg layers, live-bearing fish and warm blooded fish, cold blooded frogs that freeze solid and thaw without damage because they produce a natural antifreeze in their blood that not only prevents expansion (thereby avoiding the cellular damage) but even controls the order that parts freeze to make survival possible. Amazing that people complain about the lack of transitional life forms when the real wonder is that we manage to classify any life at all. And if people spent more time really learning about things, evolution would be as apparent as gravity. (Always assuming G-d isn't playing some nasty trick on us.)

Personally I see the hand of G-d in all this, but through rather than in place of evolution.

 

[norseamd]

do people know nothing about invertabrate eyes?

 

[norseamd]

y-h-w-h

 

[werepossum]

You seem to imagine that you have some point, other than derision.

Let's review. From the linked piece in the OP-

Lemme see... Perry is whining about federal money coming into Texas schools, some of the most poorly funded in the nation, because there are strings attached. Any governor in a similar position who was disinterested in posturing & pandering to an anti-education base would just take the money & STFU while shifting other funds to fill in where desired.

Not Perry. Not you, either.

Granted you aren't bright enough to grasp it, but just in case the lady who puts your helmet on you needs a spot of diversion, from the top:

Yeah I have to say when it comes to education, Texas is a great poster child for allowing the states less leeway, not more.

On what basis do you say that?

12th in the US
http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2012/16src.h31.html?intc=EW-QC12-LFTNAV


14th in the US
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2...W1p2K2SFHTAx9&cmp=clp-edweek&intc=EW-QC13-EWH


49th in spending per student
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...o-bottom-among-states-in-student-spending.ece

To a proggie, spending per student is the ONLY metric.

SNIP

Really! That's very interesting. Where did you come by this information about progressives?

From observation.

Perry might be a slow learner, but he knows when to grandstand for the mouth breathers, secessionists, tenthers, truthers, birthers, creationists & other unfortunates in his base. He also has to pander to the uber-wealthy conservatives who own & run Texas, as well.

They might rank near the bottom for spending on education, but they're right at the top for spending on executions, and that's all that really matters, right?

Granted, it's not really fair to use the likes of you against a master spinster like Eskimospy, but even most proggies aren't dumb enough to quote that metric after Doc Savage Fan's post.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Real science is when you have a theory, then do experiments to prove / disprove that theory.

Do an experiment to prove / disprove evolution.

I want to see a scientist take an ape and turn that ape into a person.

Why? That would have absolutely nothing to do with evolution/evolutionary theory.

Are you simply trolling or do you really not understand science as it relates to evolution?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Read the thread.

And this is what they will see

 

[Victorian Gray]

neither of them are as fundamental as christians except when it comes to the more noble philosiphical ideas of religion. like sikh warrior tradition. actually hindus do have some problems. like caste racism and more. but most hindus who immigrate to america are likely more liberal

For what it's worth, I actually know several rather 'fundamentalist' Hindus and Sikhs and none of them hold a candle to some of the more 'fundamentalist' Christians that I know.

 

[norseamd]

Real science is when you have a theory, then do experiments to prove / disprove that theory. Do an experiment to prove / disprove evolution. I want to see a scientist take an ape and turn that ape into a person.

you realize that chimps bononos and humans all "evolved from apes"

right?

 

[Sunburn74]

Whilst for most of you, evolution is a theory you read about in magazines and textbooks, for me evolution is something I have to deal with every day at work. My kind of work involved dealing with bugs that make people sick. Every day we find that the antibiotics that would normally cure certain illnesses don't work as the bacteria evolve over time and develop defense mechanisms to the way these drugs work. These mechanisms develop thru well defined evolutionary principles and can do so very rapidly indeed. So we have to constantly develop newer drugs with new molecular targets because bacteria are constantly evolving under the selective pressures antibiotics place on their populations. Often the targets are the newly evolved defense mechanisms as a strategy to allow prior drugs to work. For example, when penicillin was released it took only about 10 years or so before a significant portion of bacterial targets stopped being killed by the drug. Essentially these populations were bacteria that had some innate resistance to penicillin (Due to genetic variation that leads to subtle protein variation that occurs during replication of all organisms. More or less the same reasons why you don't look exactly like your parents) but prior to the advent of the drug that resistance was not particularly useful. Penicillin comes along and wipes out 99.9% of that bacterial population leaving only those limited resistant organisms. The replicate and now the entire population is resistant to penicillin. Scientists studied why penicillin no longer worked. Sometimes the penicillin binding protein is a genetic variant that doesn't bind it well so scientists designed a new tighter binding drug. Sometimes its because the bacterial cell was destroying penicillin with the production of an enzyme before it was reaching its binding site so scientists develop a drug to shut down the new enzyme so penicillin can reach its target or develop a penicillin that somehow doesn't get destroyed. Sometimes the drug is being pumped out of the bacterial cell before it reaches the site, so now we target the pumps and poison them. And etc. Its a game of cat and mouse. Whatever the bacteria evolve, we go after it or abandon older strategies in favor of new ones.

Furthermore we institute policies at the hospitals and clinics to limit inappropriate anti biotic use so as to slow down the evolutionary process and sometimes even reverse it. In sweden, they were able to reverse antibiotic resistance by about 40% for common upper respiratory infections by instituting a nationwide program of restrictive appropriate antibiotic use. Remove the pressures of natural selection (ie limit antibiotic exposure) and those genes that prior conferred an advantage are now not as useful and so competing populations of the same bacteria that don't have those antibiotic resistant genes will arise.

To work in this field, you cannot be a creationist. That theory just doesn't work when you're talking about growing bacterial antibiotic resistance profile over time (1-10 years is all it may take for entire communities' drug resistance profiles to change. Within an individual patient, maybe 6 months is all it takes to see documented evolutionary changes), doesn't guide strategy, doesn't offer any useful information, and won't help you save lives. You'd be laughed out of town of you had that on your resume. The theory of evolution however explains most of what we see, gives us most of our treatments, and defines most of the policies hospitals in this country use for limiting infectious disease.

Just my two cents.

 

[norseamd]

Whilst for most of you, evolution is a theory you read about in magazines and textbooks, for me evolution is something I have to deal with every day at work. My kind of work involved dealing with bugs that make people sick. Every day we find that the anti biotics that would normally cute certain illnesses don't work a the bacteria evolve over time and develop defense mechanisms to the way these drugs work. So we have to constantly develop newer drugs with new molecular targets because bacteria are constantly evolving under the selective pressures anti biotics place on their populations. Furthermore we institute policies at the hospitals and clinics to limit inappropriate anti biotic use so as to show down the evolutionary process and sometimes even reverse it. To work in this field, you cannot be a creationist. That theory just doesn't work when you're taking about growing bacterial antibiotic resistance profile over time (1-10 years is all it may take for entire communities profile to change. Within an individual patient, maybe 6 months is all it takes to see documented evolutionary changes), doesn't guide strategy, doesn't offer any useful information, and won't help you save lives. You'd be laughed out of town of you had that on your resume. The theory of evolution however explains most of what we see, gives us most of our treatments, and defines most of the policies hospitals in this country use for limiting infectious disease. Just my two cents.

the only thing i have to say is the dna can adapt and does not need to rely on survival of the fittest entirely

lamarck and darwin are likely both right

wonder what darwin would have thought if he knew what we do today