SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[BeBMan]

Then your post is irrelevant because I don't have any actual (conclusive) evidence that it even occured

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly my point.

However, everyone submits to the fallacy of assuming it actually happens

[Elok]

Geez, we're missing the point.

Natural selection undoubtedly occurs. It does not undoubtedly result in speciation. The similarity for testing purposes of monkeys and men shows that we are two very similar animals. Which is evident from just looking at the two, never mind evolution. That does not necessarily mean natural selection was the cause of that similarity, or that the two are even necessarily related. Fish species from opposite ends of the world might look identical in form and behavior without being second cousins, since an efficient form speaks for itself. Inventors who have never met or even heard of each other might come up with nearly identical solutions to the same engineering challenge.

Saying that natural selection occurs, and therefore it must have caused the rise of species, is like saying that the Earth's orbit around the sun proves that the sun orbits around an even BIGGER object, which orbits a bigger object still, and so on. Oh, and since you can't have waves in a vaccum, light is obviously propagated by an invisible substance called "aether." It's like scientific anthropomorphism.

And I'm asking for concrete examples, not what experts mention in their abstracts. Search the congressional budget this year and you'll find lots of funds allocated for the War On Terror, but when you look closer most of it is stuff like subsidies for nail factories in Wyoming. Pork and BS happen, and without wishing to sound too cynical, I call Buzzword Bandwagon. Kinda like the way half the research products announced recently are "nanotechnology." How are they actually doing these studies, with a time machine? And how on earth does saying how a critter got here alter what it is?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Saying that natural selection occurs, and therefore it must have caused the rise of species

Where'd this strawman come from?

And I'm asking for concrete examples

Concrete examples of what? You still haven't explained how to distinguish the true scotsman from the scotsman (or, rather, how to distinguish "evolution as a whole" from evolution).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Saying that natural selection occurs, and therefore it must have caused the rise of species, is like saying that the Earth's orbit around the sun proves that the sun orbits around an even BIGGER object, which orbits a bigger object still, and so on.

Actually, it's like Newton demonstrating that the Earth's attraction to the sun behaves according to the same rules as a projectile's attraction to the Earth, thus they must both be caused by one force, gravity

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by loinburger

Where'd this strawman come from?

The same place his 'definition' of atheism came from- and where monkeys fly out of.



Some useful definitions from a dictionary of science:

evolution: the changes over many generations by which different kinds of organisms have arisen from very early forms.

mutation: a sudden change in the genes of an organism caused by a change in the DNA of the chromosomes.
Mutation does not happen often, but the rate is increased by radiation, neutrons, and some chemical substances. Changes of single genes can take place, or a whole chromosome can be altered.
Changes in the genes in body cells have an effect only on the person; but changes in the genes in gametes have an effect on all the offspring. All mutations happen by chance, most mutations have a bad effect.

mutant: a gene which has been altered by mutation. An organism altered by such a gene. A characteristic produced by such a gene.

natural selection: the tendency to survive of those organisms which are best suited to their conditions of living. These organisms live longer and reproduce offspring with inherited characteristics which are useful for survival. The organisms and offspring which survive are said to be selected by a natural process. Natural selection thus controls the direction of change of inherited characteristics as unsuitable mutants die.

Darwinism: the idea that evolution took place by natural selection.

Source: Longman's Illustrated Science Dictionary


1. What is evolution?

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.

2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

4. What is a species?

Members of one species do not normally interbreed with members of other species in nature. Sometimes, members of different species, such as lions and tigers, can interbreed if kept together in captivity. But in nature, geographic isolation and differences in behavior, such as choice of habitat, keep these sorts of closely related animal species apart. Similarly, closely related species of plants can sometimes be hybridized by horticulturists, but these hybrids are rarely found in nature. A species, then, is defined by science as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that is reproductively isolated from other such groups.

8. Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?

Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.

9. How does natural selection work?

In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. The advantage comes in the form of survival and reproductive success. For example, those individuals who are better able to find and use a food resource will, on average, live longer and produce more offspring than those who are less successful at finding food. Inherited traits that increase individuals' fitness are then passed to their offspring, thus giving the offspring the same advantages.

10. How do organisms evolve?

Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve. Because individuals in a population vary, some in the population are better able to survive and reproduce given a particular set of environmental conditions. These individuals generally survive and produce more offspring, thus passing their advantageous traits on to the next generation. Over time, the population changes.


11. Does evolution prove there is no God?

No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

A timeline of contributors to the ah, evolution, of evolutionary theory:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotmline.html

[loinburger]

I didn't want to get into an evolution debate (since I won't have time to finish it -- roadtrip to Montana takes precedence over evolution), I'm just trying to get a lock on why Elok and others raise objections about teaching biology without raising objections about teaching, e.g., geology, or history, or physics, etc. I mean, it's not as though Joe Sixpack is able to pull a concrete example of General Relativity's applicability out of his toolbelt, but that hardly seems like a valid reason to stop teaching physics -- so, why single out biology for special treatment?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by loinburger
I didn't want to get into an evolution debate (since I won't have time to finish it -- roadtrip to Montana takes precedence over evolution), I'm just trying to get a lock on why Elok and others raise objections about teaching biology without raising objections about teaching, e.g., geology, or history, or physics, etc. I mean, it's not as though Joe Sixpack is able to pull a concrete example of General Relativity's applicability out of his toolbelt, but that hardly seems like a valid reason to stop teaching physics -- so, why single out biology for special treatment?

Because it had (and clearly still has) sociological and religious and cultural implications for them. Such people believes it undermines their faith, and spurious 'creationist science' which is anything but, is used as if it were subject to the same peer review or tests as Darwinian theory.

Frankly, that lot would still have us believing in the spontaneous generation of flies from rotten meat, cholera being caught from miasma, and crocodiles being produced from the mud of the Nile.

[Elok]

Evolution "as a whole": The idea that natural selection caused the rise of various species by allowing those with beneficial traits to outlive/outbreed their rivals and over time breed such pronounced differences as to create a whole separate species and gradually resulted in the massive variety of life seen today from single-cell organisms.

The thing what I does agree with: Natural selection does occur, but only by allowing species to adapt to changing circumstances, or to cause slight variations that might be argued to amount to speciation but have no radical effect. All the examples I have ever heard mentioned are of this variety: antibiotic-resistant germs, the various finches Darwin obsessed over, et cetera.

Of course, it's impossible to view an example of really impressive change, such as tree-shrew to hominid, because such large changes are supposed to take thousands or millions of years. But that's partly my point. The really huge credit evolution is given is attributing a cause to an event people never even see, over a length of time we can't even fully grasp on a gut level, and all because we have "proof" in the form of some germs surviving penicillin while their friends don't.

The actual evidence to go by is a bunch of fossils, of different ages, showing different, more or less specialized forms. This supports the statement that life forms of different levels of sophistication came into being on earth at different times. You can hazard a guess that the critters of similar but subtly different form are related and changed for some purpose, though that's tenuous. Even DNA analysis wouldn't necessarily mean anything, because I imagine similar creatures might very well have similar DNA whether they are related or not. And DNA or other biochem analysis might be tricky when the subject is a rock.

But assuming that guess is absolutely correct, there is absolutely no way to know how the gradual changes took place. It might have been natural selection...or sympathetic vibration with Taoist energy harmonics, for all we know. This kind of inquiry is different from the rest of biology in that there is no interaction with the subject. There are no multiple trials, no controlled variables, just a bunch of dead matter and various implements to poke it with.

In other words, it's entirely archeological. But I imagine that, if I went to the excavation of a long-lost civilization that left no written records or artwork or anything like that, only petrified bodies and a few funny rocks that might have been arrowheads, and postulated that they were killed off by a specific phenomenon that could have happened but would have left no clear evidence either way, and furthermore went on to ridicule everyone who disagreed with me as backwards, stupid, and opposed to progress...the real archeologists would ask me just what MrFun asked me, "What are you smoking?"

I guess it's not that the idea enrages me, it's just that it's embraced with the ferocity of religious dogma by a discipline supposedly renowned for thoughtful examination, despite the fact that everything about it is limited to the realm of speculation. And if people object to it, folks like our friend Molly here go off on a rant about how we'll all revert to the stone age and sacrifice babies to Baal and yadda yadda yadda because a few people don't believe in a hypothetical construct that can't be interacted with. People here make fun of religious mania, but this kind of fanaticism is even worse, because at least if any given religion is correct there will be consequences for ignorance. If evolution did occur, it's not like we can use that information constructively, or that we will ever need it. We might as well argue over how many people named Chang there are in Shanghai for all the good it does.

Not that fundamentalists aren't just as bigoted. But at least it's generally accepted that they're morons.

Kucinich: This is anticlimactic after my loooong response to Loin, but while bullets might act the same way as the earth, fossils don't "act" at all. They sit there and think profound silicone-based thoughts we don't understand and accept the psychological projections of scientists like little paleontological christ figures. I now throw rocks at your metaphor.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Elok
Even DNA analysis wouldn't necessarily mean anything, because I imagine similar creatures might very well have similar DNA whether they are related or not. And DNA or other biochem analysis might be tricky when the subject is a rock.

You imagine wrong. A hedgehog's DNA is not similar to a porcupine's DNA. A porcupine's DNA is not similar to an echidna's DNA.

But assuming that guess is absolutely correct, there is absolutely no way to know how the gradual changes took place. It might have been natural selection...or sympathetic vibration with Taoist energy harmonics, for all we know.

Sympathetic vibration with Taoist energy harmonics would be a form of natural selection.

Natural selection is a catch-all term. It refers to the influence of environmental biases. All environments are biased for something. If sympathetic vibration with Taoist energy harmonics increases a gene's survival value, the gene survives.

Sympathetic vibration with Taoist energy harmonics would be an environmental factor. Generally, however, we only consider experimentally confirmed factors such as tangled-up DNA during meiosis and base-pair switching between chromosomes due to radiation bombardment.

If you can experimentally confirm the existence of Taoist energy harmonics, I am sure evolutionary biologists would update their models to include it as a factor.

This kind of inquiry is different from the rest of biology in that there is no interaction with the subject. There are no multiple trials, no controlled variables, just a bunch of dead matter and various implements to poke it with.

Otoh, new fossils are being found all the time. Thus, it is possible to hypothesize about what discoveries are to be expected in the field and then see if the discoveries in the field match the theory.

[Ted Striker]

SCROTUM

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok


I guess it's not that the idea enrages me, it's just that it's embraced with the ferocity of religious dogma by a discipline supposedly renowned for thoughtful examination, despite the fact that everything about it is limited to the realm of speculation. And if people object to it, folks like our friend Molly here go off on a rant about how we'll all revert to the stone age and sacrifice babies to Baal and yadda yadda yadda because a few people don't believe in a hypothetical construct that can't be interacted with. People here make fun of religious mania, but this kind of fanaticism is even worse, because at least if any given religion is correct there will be consequences for ignorance.

If evolution did occur, it's not like we can use that information constructively, or that we will ever need it.

The 'information' in evolutionary theory is already used (as useful hypotheses) in chemical evolution (trying to show how 'life' developed from 'non-life' or inorganic matter.

J.D. Bernal proposed a way in which dilute solutions of compounds could have been concentrated to give rise to the larger molecules needed for life.

The Russian biochemist Alexander Ivanovich Oparin in 1924 published a booklet stating that at a fundamental level 'there was no difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combinations of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter.'

It is employed as a useful theory in processes ranging from inorganic chemistry, colloidal chemistry, astronomical studies relating to the formation of elements in stars, molecular biology, biochemistry- well, it's a long list of applications.

As for its being embraced with the ferocity of a religious dogma, I find such a criticism from someone who completely misrepresented atheism very funny indeed.


Perhaps Elok could tell us of the vast numbers of people killed or tortured or sent into exile because of Darwin's theory....

What the theory of evolution does is require people to think, to question what was presented as historical fact without any of the kind of scientific rigour or examination required by the testing of Darwin's hypotheses.

You can choose to believe in the theory of evolution or not, but at least with a scientific theory you can attempt to disprove it. And no one will kill you for disbelieving in it.

"For instance, the case is often made that since evolution cannot be observed in action, it is therefore not a valid scientific theory, for all scientific theories (so it is alleged) have to be confirmed by direct observation of the process under investigation. Of course, this is not the case. Many scientific hypothetical models simply cannot be observed directly (e.g., molecular interactions, expansion at the edge of the universe, and so on). The essence of many scientific procedures is making predictions based on a hypothetical model of a physical phenomenon (without having direct observational evidence of the reality which that model is designed to explain) and then testing the prediction. What characterizes such a process as scientific is that the prediction can be repeatedly and publicly checked by anyone in some quantifiable manner. Most of the work of science consists of carrying out such tests of predictions and then confirming aspects of the theoretical model or discovering errors, anomalies, inconsistencies, and so on.

By that procedure, evolution is clearly scientific, since every detailed study of fossilized strata is, in effect, a test of the theory. If someone were to locate a complex life form in the very oldest rock levels, evolutionary theory would be in difficulty, since such a finding would flatly contradict its predictions. The fact that such an observation has never occurred provides some of the best evidence for the validity of the theory.

One of the gravest scientific objections to the Creation Scientist's account of the creation of species is precisely this point. Not only can the story of how God created the world and everything in it never be observed (in that respect it is even more deficient than the theory of evolution), but the Genesis narrative generates virtually no testable predictions, other than one which has been so repeatedly falsified that it has no scientific validity whatsoever (namely, that if all the species were formed at the same time, we should find all types at all levels of the fossilized strata)."

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/creationism.htm

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Elok
Moving along, my challenge stands in less confrontational terms. I honestly do think that the broad acceptance of evolution as *the* truth is an overly hasty embrace of one idea that might be true but has no specific merit beyond the fact that nobody can think of a story that sounds better.

…I guess it's not that the idea enrages me, it's just that it's embraced with the ferocity of religious dogma by a discipline supposedly renowned for thoughtful examination, despite the fact that everything about it is limited to the realm of speculation.

The truth is that 99.44% of science can be taught, learned, performed, and advanced without a single mention or thought of evolution, creation, or whatever. Such entities are social in nature, rather than scientific; but we are social creatures.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm an honest atheist and my decision not to believe in the supernatural is not based on emotion but rationality.

I submit that any belief is rooted in emotion. Materialism is just as much an appeal to emotional security as belief in supernatural. Perhaps possibility of the supernatural, unprobable by naturalistic methods, creates insecurity.

If you believe in one set of supernatural occurrences, I fail to see why you wouldn't believe in the others- they all seem to me equally improbable and equally absurd.
Nice stories in some cases, though.

The fact that you equate all beliefs in supernatural reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of belief, and of Christianity.

" Only the atheists who seek to impose their antireligious agenda are cockroaches. "

I take issue with any fringe group, religious or political (such as say, the Knights of Columbus) who agitate to get their supernatural or political agenda imposed in a pledge that previously lacked reference to any otherworldly beings.

That fight was fifty years ago. If Congress has the authority to make the pledge, it has authority to amend it. Amending it again, to whatever end, is a separate matter. In this case it is the agenda of the antireligious fringe.

It seems that Elizabeth I of England may have been on to something …she is alleged to have said she had no desire to make windows into men's souls.

But she did make windows into men's allegiance, and she preserved the establishment of CoE, defined as a religious test that could be applied to disqualify any who fail it from elected or appointed office.

Which is precisely what adding a reference to 'god' or 'a god' in the pledge does. Is it the business of anyone else whether or not you believe in god, gods, or the man in the moon?

No, the pledge is not empowered to qualify or disqualify a candidate from office, and therefore is not an establishment of religion. Whether voters choose to weigh religion in their decision is outside the perview of the Constitution.

"I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives......it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me.

But this does not satisfy the priesthood.

They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest."

Thomas Jefferson

Is this not the same with the atheists, who chafe at even the passing mention of a God? They make themselves priests of materialism and make infidels of any who believe otherwise.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Well Mr Fun, you've almost stumbled onto the problem created by the pledge. People who don't believe in that one God, even people who do like Christians who've actually read what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking, are violating their faith when they recite the pledge. So why is a state that is prohibited from establishing religion coercing children to pledge allegiance to this God?

With such a facile interpretation even marriage would be a violation of "what Jesus said about idolatry and oath taking." Nice try, though.

Besides, the 1st Amendment can't be anymore clear - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That means Congress cannot "ask" us to affirm or pledge allegiance to any God, much less the God Congress claims to believe in.

Since the pledge does not affect qualification for public office it is not an establishment of religion.

It IS an imposition for one group of people to use public schools funded with taxes to coerce other people's children into pledging allegiance to someone else's God.

…And what do you think it means to pledge allegiance to the God of Congress?

The generic use of God may include whatever definition of God you may believe in. If a hypothetical person believes God is a physical being who lives on the planet Kolob, then that is the God pictured in the mind when speaking those words. Whatever definition of God was held by those who inserted the words has no effect on this hypothetical believer.

We're talking about children, not the superior reasoning of adults. Furthermore, we're talking about a state that is prohibited from establishing religion coercing these children into pledging allegiance to the state's "god".

It is the parents' instruction on God that inhabits the mind of the child, and to the child's mind the pledge is affirming the parents' instruction. If that instruction is to disbelieve in God (Mr. Fun's description of "strong" atheism, which is in effect a religion), the fight is about that fringe belief.

"Berz -- which religion is the government sanctioning?"
Christianity, it sure wasn't Islam or Judaism.

No, the government isn't sanctioning one or the other. It is sanctioning general public belief in God, which is another matter entirely.

If you were an atheist or a Hindu…

No, a Hindu has no problem affirming a belief in God. They just define God as represented by Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu plus 330 million other manifestations. The modern pagan (a title they wear with pride) defines God as manifested through multitudes of gods/goddesses of hindu, nordic, celtic, or other traditions.

You're right there are 2 issues here - the coercion and the establishment clause, but they are related since we can identify when the establishment clause is being violated by identifying the coercion. For example, Judge Moore down in Alabama put up a monument to the 10 Commandments and that was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Now think about that... A judge puts a piece of stone in a courthouse rotunda and that violates the 1st Amendment, but teachers - agents of the government - "ask" children to stand and pledge allegiance to the state's god and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment? Sheesh!!! Anyway, Moore's monument was neither a law or directive for anyone to do anything, no one was being coerced to do anything. Therefore, his monument did not violate the establishment clause. Leave it to the SCOTUS to get it backwards... That's what happens when political hacks dressed in black robes are appointed to a court by a bunch of political hacks, that's when we get screwy decisions that make no sense...

That's because SCOTUS is caught up in the general judicial activism that began decades ago. Unfortunately, in the short term, the only way to battle activism is to be activist. And since nine can't agree on which way to go there is chaos. If SCOTUS had done its job all along by striking down judicial activism as encroachment on the legislative and executive domains then we'd at least have the chaos confined to those branches where chaos belongs.