I think there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. On the surface your argument sounds solid, but you have not taken into account the devastation the 99% of flawed mutations has taken on the remaining population.
Most mutations will not cause death, and will not effect reproductivity, but will cause entropy in the gene pool. The 99% overwhelms the 1%.
I don't see how this claim makes any sense at all. The mutation is either detrimental (in this case meaning that it adversely affects reproduction) and will decrease in frequency over the course of generations, beneficial (in this case meaning it improves reproductive success) and will increase in frequency over time, or neutral. The last case (often a mutation that has no phenotypic effect) will by no means "overwhelm" anything. If you have a better model, rerun the numbers with your change factored in, because I really don't see where you're going with this assertion.
For example, I have osteogenesisimperfecto. Inherited from my mother and a 50% chance of passing to my children. It does not effect re productivity and has negligible mortality. Yet it is a clear example of non beneficial mutation that would have started with one birth hundreds of years ago.
Non-beneficial, certainly. So what's the problem? Do you expect this mutation to "overwhelm" the population somehow, or simply cruise along in the noise like most other mutations? I would expect the latter, but if you have a reason to believe otherwise, I'm interested.
Example: The Redshift. Astronomers observe that the light from galaxies and stars is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This has been INTERPRETED to be caused by the doppler effect. It is this interpretation of Hubble that has been a central assumption of present day cosmology. It is the sticking to this interpretation that has necessitated convoluted never observed constructs such as dark matter and energy in order to make some of the present data fit that interpretation.
Cosmological theory as it stands explains the observation. Do you have an alternative explanation of all of the observed data?
Is there actual evidence out there that microevolution becomes macroevolution given enough time? (I am not sure I can trust the analysis of the scientific community, because of the fervor with which some people are looking for missing links and for ET and ostracizing of those who disagree with evolution, kind of reminds one of religion, no? The best thing I can think of would be genetic analysis, which could demonstrate common descent in a completely objective mathematical way.)
Well, we'll need to start with a meaningful target for you to suggest. Speciation has been observed. A number of very interesting mutations have been observed as well. Equally interesting, if we look at the types of mutations that are known to occur, they can theoretically generate any arbitrary string of DNA. Genetic algorithms don't show any sort of "leveling off" or upper limit on the complexity of what they generate. If you can suggest a target that would satisfy you, we may be able to come up with some observations that fit what you're looking for.
Really, your objection makes sense, but it's not really any stronger than objecting to "macro-erosion" or "macro-crystal-growth" or "macro-Pluto-orbits-the-sun." There are good observational and inductive reasons to extrapolate these observations. More telling in all of this is the fact that creationists the world over have been trying feverishly to come up with a mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from turning into "macroevolution" and the best they've come up with is hand-wavy concepts like irreducible complexity and something Dembski calls "complex specified information."
It's the difference between saying "I don's believe god exists" and saying "I believe god does not exist." The first is a statement of skepticism(because it's in the negative sense); the second is an affirmation of belief. Agnostics do the former while atheists do the latter.
I actively believe that the tooth fairy does not exist. I actively believe that leprecahuns don't exist. Is that a religion? Am I totally nutty for that position? Am I taking huge logical leaps? Not so much. I suppose it becomes a religion when I say that nothing could ever convince me otherwise, but I can't think of any notable atheists who would say such a thing. If something that appeared to be a leprechaun scurried across my desk, I would change my tune.
Frankly, I wish that Huxley had never coined the term "agnostic" because it allows people to tar atheists as some sort of wild and crazy cult instead of people who believe that things without evidence to support their existence probably don't exist. As I see it, there's very little practical difference between not believing in random thing X and taking the position that unless there's more evidence, X doesn't exist. The world is full of examples of far fetched values for X. I don't think that taking a fence straddling position on every one of them puts an agnostic on a particularly high pedestal of rationality.
Believing that crazy propositions probably aren't true is a sensible default position as long as you're willing to change it, and I think that a great many people call themselves agnostic simply because they think that atheists somehow lack that willingness. If you honestly take no position on any theological propositions, kudos to you for having a ridiculously open mind, but I think you're in the minority. As it stands, I think that most people call themselves agnostic are simply taking the noncontroversial way out. Very few really believe that anything not known to be false is equally likely to be true or false.
You have a very very weak understanding of the concept of "irreducibly complex". Now, had you instead said the genetic algorithm produced a _physical_ antennae attached to and _separate_ from even the hardware (FPGA) itself, then you might have an argument against "irreducibly complex".
There are a number of problems with the idea of irreducible complexity (not least of which is the fact that it's probably not possible to show that any given system is irreducibly complex). The most glaring one that I can think of is that irreducible complexity attempts to show that there are no paths to a given outcome by eliminating only one type of path: the jump from a system with N parts to a system with N + 1 parts. Even if all systems with N parts are nonfunctional, there's no reason to believe that there is no functioning system with N + 2 that can work (albeit differently) with the removal of one of those parts. For example, an arch may seem irreducibly complex because all of the stones are necessary to keep it up. Add some scaffolding (something the idea of IC doesn't take into account), add in the N stones that you need for your arch, and remove the scaffolding, and you have yourself an IC system that was created step-by-step with no trouble.
Your post drives home the most important point, though: It appears that IC is simply a tautology as most creationists use it. The fact that the thing evolved means it can't be IC, because IC systems by definition, can't evolve. QED? Not so much. Until somebody can actually demonstrate that a system is truly IC (with a meaningful and testable definition of IC), irreducible complexity is nothing more than another god-in-the-gaps argument.
Indeed, atheism is a religion. Why? Because, just as a traditional religion can't prove the existence of god and so must believe it on faith, atheists cannot disprove the existence of god and so must believe it on faith.
I see this assertion tossed around again and again, and I seriously can't see the reasoning. Most people who "don't believe" in something aren't saying that they believe 100% without any reservation that the idea is not possible. I don't believe that aliens are abducting people, but that doesn't mean that I'm 100% certain it's not happening. Are people who don't believe in Zeus taking a great leap of faith, or are they simply not convinced that Zeus exists, just like any number of other ideas?
Sure, anything that we believe not to be true may be true. We can engage in all sorts of doubt and epistemological nihilism if we choose to. I happen to think that to go that far is simply too crippling, though. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, Odin, or leprechauns. If you want to call each of those beliefs (or the collection of them) a "religion" then I suppose that's your prerogative, but I think that it makes the term "religion" significantly less meaningful.
Civil litigation and possible bankruptcy is not a significant deterrent for many.
They would be if there was a higher probability of being caught. It seems like the appropriate way of handling this problem is not to crush a few individuals beyond all rational justification but to spend some time increasing the likelihood of catching the perpetrators. Seriously, if going completely bankrupt isn't enough of a deterrent to prevent people from copying software for fun, they clearly think that their probability of getting caught is zero. These are mostly "invincible" teens and twenty-somethings. It can't happen to them! For people like that, no penalty is going to act as a deterrent. We just end up with some unnecessarily ruined lives, the extra cost of keeping people who clearly aren't dangerous in prison, and effectively zero deterrent effect.
I make my living writing software, and I'm definitely against copyright infringement. I am, however, pragmatic: these guys weren't costing the economy nearly what the BSA claims they were, and the policies we have in place to prevent these crimes are clearly unreasonable and ineffective. We might as well burn their families at the stake while we're at it--just for some extra pointless theatrics. While we're in the business of hurting people just for the sake of ineffective public spectacle, why not go hog wild?
Is there ever a case where copyright infringement should be punished more seriously than first degree murder? Sure, it's unlikely to happen, but even having the possibility for an overlap like that shows that we have some pretty screwed up priorities.
I have a problem with "cherry-picking" the information you're giving to kids so that they can only reach one
conclusion.
What information, specifically, is being left out that you'd like to see put in?
To start, the fact that alternate theories exist for how we came into existance. We have no problem mentioning that prior to Keppler, Copernicus, and Galileo everyone* believed the earth was the center of the universe, so why not mention everyone* believed god created man?
*By "everyone" I am refering to "western civilization". I'm not certain what scientific theories were favored in other parts of the world.
Well, I would guess that the reason it's generally not done that way is that it would be perceived as biology teachers busting on somebody's religious beliefs. I can't imagine somebody saying something to the effect of, "Western Civilization used to take the Bible literally on creation, but modern science has discarded that view" not raising somebody's ire. I think that a good biology class generally covers discarded ideas like works of Lysenko and Lamarck, which are good for historical perspective. In fact, I think that covering those ideas covers the historical angle fairly well, just like covering older models of the atom and the solar system are useful in illuminating modern theory, whereas digging into a deep discussion of Apollo or the four basic elements is probably stretching the exercise a bit far.
Fundamentally, I think the issue is that teaching evolution is sticky enough. It's all good fun to point out that we're not so big on the Apollo explanation of celestial mechanics, but as soon as you bring up a religion that isn't dead, you're stepping on somebody's toes. I have no problem making the statement you recommended, but I have a feeling that it would cause more hurt feelings rather than less.
If it is a fundamental failing in science education, then how better to "fix" it than teaching kids where the flaws lie?
The problem is, the "flaws" that you're bringing up are typically the same tired old creationist claptrap that gets regurgitated time and time again on the Internet. It's typically nonsense designed to sound credible to people unfamiliar with the field. If we actually wanted to discuss the real cutting-edge research and areas of true uncertainty and confusion in evolutionary biology, we'd have to bring kids up to a graduate school level in very short order. We certainly wouldn't be doing them any good by bombarding them with Kent Hovind videos or Dembski's pesudomathematical chatter. Primary school science is there to teach kids the basics of what science is and generally what our best science results are.
*I realize they are being told "evolution is a theory", but many hear this as "evolution is fact".
You've hit upon the problem. Kids aren't being taught what "theory" and "hypothesis" and other very important words mean. I had a great science class my sophomore year in high school. It was taught by a real biologist who worked very hard to instill in us the philosophy of science. She made sure that we understood the tentative nature of all conclusions, that the hallmarks of a good scientific theory are its testability and ability to explain things, and that some things simply aren't testable with the tools of science. She addressed the creation issue simply by saying that evolution is the best result we've come up with an that it's an incredibly powerful theory that explains the data well. Creationism doesn't meet the criteria to be science, but that's not the same thing as saying it's 100% wrong. It just means that a number of the claims that are made simply can't be addressed by science.
I can't say that I remember the Krebs cycle, but I do remember a lot of more meaningful lessons in that class. I think that students should be taught very early on what science is for, what claims it can address, and what claims it simply can't address. It should go without saying that anything taught in a science class is our best understanding of the world, and that their kids may laugh at some of the things they were taught when new data becomes available.
My problem is with how people are proposing to do it. Usually, the people bringing in the critical analysis clauses try to single out evolutionary theory, even though it's among the best supported scientific theories the students will learn. They are also the same people who tried to get creationism into schools years ago and the same people who tried to re-brand creationism as "intelligent design" after their first attempt was rebuffed. I have no doubt that critical analysis clauses are simply getting the foot in the door for more expansive programs designed to satisfy religious crusaders who simply have religious issues with evolutionary theory--regardless of the quality of the science. It's an insult to think that people wouldn't see through this stuff.
If they really cared about students getting a good science education, they'd vote for a program that teaches the best science we have available to us after teaching the kids what it means to be good science. Of course, they never propose anything like that because it would completely obliterate any hope they have of getting creationism/creation science/intelligent design/whatever the label for the day is into classrooms. They're not here to play the science game. They're here to get their own brand of dogma inserted into the curriculum because they couldn't get it past peer review by adults.
Are there any rules that say that cops shouldn't use turn signals... like... ever? I think that in all my years of driving I've only seen police cruisers us their blinkers a handful of times. I can't quite figure that one out. Are they just trying to keep the bad guys guessing?
Because frankly, there are a few holes, such as the entire fossil record... Where are the interevolutionary species fossils?
What's an interevolutionary species? A more interesting question is, where were all of the elephants when the mastodons were walking around? How did rabbits just poof into the fossil record after dinosaurs disappeared? Why are no rabbits buried with dinosaurs? Exactly how are you interpreting the fossil record?
The citizens of Kansas should be allowed to determine what their children learn.
Within limits, that's true. However, we have every right to point and laugh when they try to change the definition of science to something that would include astrology and magic as scientific fields. They shouldn't be surprised or offended when they become the laughing stock of the rest of the modern world.
And I would also want the teacher to be able to present alternative theories of how this world came to be and evidences of the inability of evolution to explain natural phenomenom.
My point is that science has NOT observed major evolutionary change - from a fish to a bird, or a dog to a cat or whatever the theory is these days. It has not been observed in the lab, we have not seen punctuated equilibrium, or any other major change. We have seen minor changes in the form of adaptation.
The Bible would be an awfully long book if it went to infinite precision on all of its measurements. Infinitely long, in fact. I'll tend to give it a pass on that one.
They might not say it's "fact", but they strongly imply "this is the way it happened". Students don't realize it is not "fact" because they don't realize there is any alternative explanation.
This is a failing of primary school science programs in their teaching of the philosophy of science. It has nothing to do with evolution per se. I would say that just skimming over the posts here should be enough to indicate that we're doing a terrible job teaching kids how science works and what it is. The idea that yanking evolution from the curriculum or singling it out for special scrutiny will somehow "fix" the problem is simply nonsense.
Creationists typically use the "critical analysis" problem as an excuse to beat on a theory they don't like. If they were truly concerned about kids absorbing the fundamentals of how science works, they wouldn't push unscientific philosophical wanking like ID into the classroom. They'd be pushing for a lot more work on making kids understand the tentative nature of all scientific results and a lot more discussion of the philosophy and history of science. As it stands, most serious science instructors have learned to recognize "critical analysis" provisions as the Trojan horses they are. That's why they get shouted down. There's too much history to ignore.
Part of good science is repeatability of observations. If somebody could repeat the results of the wool experiment, that would be a very interesting trick and well worth investigating. Do you think it would work if we tried it now?
You can see modifications of existing genetic information in an organism, but there haven't been ANY observable (seen in a lab, or in present day) mutations where brand new genetic information has been added to an organism.
Challenge! Please define "information" and how you measure it in this context.
Can't see youtube at work, but I can comment on Dawkins.
You can comment on him, but have you actually read any of his work? I'm getting the impression that you haven't, or that you haven't read it very carefully.
Perhaps he was voting for an sex education abstinence-only program that does not "misinform, distort, and outright lie about sex and safety"?
The first criterion will be hard to meet. Kids come in misinformed and leave misinformed due to gaps in the curriculum. It's not directly misinforming them, but it's not exactly producing an informed graduating class. I would say that a "lie by omission" certainly counts when we're talking about matters involving physical safety.
One purely "secular" problem is: where can morality be for evolved animals with evolved behaviors? How can a behavior be "wrong" (or "right", for that matter) if it merely arises because it provides evolutionary advantage? If replication of genes is the highest good - or rather, if there is no "good", but just "what happens", then whence morality?
Likewise, what makes behavior "wrong" or "right" simply because God says so? The philosophical problem of morality runs deeper than you seem to think it does.
More like, people who are using anything provided at someone else's expense are in no position to bitch about others doing the same thing.
Think "tragedy of the commons" here. A librarian's job is to make sure that a common public resource is performing its function as best it can, and allowing people to monopolize resources in such a way that it makes the whole system function poorly is failing at that task. Reserving, say, half of the computers for research only or implementing a reasonable time limit on computer use would keep things flowing smoothly and shouldn't cramp anyone's style. You're not allowed to check out half of the books in the library all at once and keep them for six months. Why not have similar policies guaranteeing reasonable access to computers as well?
That being said, I doubt that the equitable use of public resources is the reason for this bill. It smells more like "Think of the children" paranoia. Likewise, why do we need the legislature to step in and manage mundane details that librarians are more than capable of handling for themselves? The librarians I have known have generally been smart people and good stewards of the libraries they run. I don't think that micromanaging their policies and demanding that they dig into their less than copious resources to deal with yet another pointless regulation is a good way to go.
I'm not trying to raise any question, I'm just pointing out the folly of the OP who makes a witty retort to the headline without bothering to examine the situation described in the article.
I'm referring to the fact that the 1st Amendment (which the OP was quoting) applies equally to the US Congress and the various state governments, so the distinction is moot. At the same time, I happen to think that the 1st Amendment doesn't really come into play here. I think that in this case, it's more a matter of idiotic public policy brought on by panic. Par for the course, in other words.
I wonder if the auto companies tried to use that arguement against California emissions laws, or as a restriction of trade amongst the states. I honestly don't know so please, don't mod me down.
I doubt that they would have tried. I can't imagine that would get any traction in court because ruling in favor of that argument would basically make it impossible for any state law to ban any product that may be legal in another state.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-beneficial, certainly. So what's the problem? Do you expect this mutation to "overwhelm" the population somehow, or simply cruise along in the noise like most other mutations? I would expect the latter, but if you have a reason to believe otherwise, I'm interested.
Really, your objection makes sense, but it's not really any stronger than objecting to "macro-erosion" or "macro-crystal-growth" or "macro-Pluto-orbits-the-sun." There are good observational and inductive reasons to extrapolate these observations. More telling in all of this is the fact that creationists the world over have been trying feverishly to come up with a mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from turning into "macroevolution" and the best they've come up with is hand-wavy concepts like irreducible complexity and something Dembski calls "complex specified information."
Frankly, I wish that Huxley had never coined the term "agnostic" because it allows people to tar atheists as some sort of wild and crazy cult instead of people who believe that things without evidence to support their existence probably don't exist. As I see it, there's very little practical difference between not believing in random thing X and taking the position that unless there's more evidence, X doesn't exist. The world is full of examples of far fetched values for X. I don't think that taking a fence straddling position on every one of them puts an agnostic on a particularly high pedestal of rationality.
Believing that crazy propositions probably aren't true is a sensible default position as long as you're willing to change it, and I think that a great many people call themselves agnostic simply because they think that atheists somehow lack that willingness. If you honestly take no position on any theological propositions, kudos to you for having a ridiculously open mind, but I think you're in the minority. As it stands, I think that most people call themselves agnostic are simply taking the noncontroversial way out. Very few really believe that anything not known to be false is equally likely to be true or false.
Your post drives home the most important point, though: It appears that IC is simply a tautology as most creationists use it. The fact that the thing evolved means it can't be IC, because IC systems by definition, can't evolve. QED? Not so much. Until somebody can actually demonstrate that a system is truly IC (with a meaningful and testable definition of IC), irreducible complexity is nothing more than another god-in-the-gaps argument.
Sure, anything that we believe not to be true may be true. We can engage in all sorts of doubt and epistemological nihilism if we choose to. I happen to think that to go that far is simply too crippling, though. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, Odin, or leprechauns. If you want to call each of those beliefs (or the collection of them) a "religion" then I suppose that's your prerogative, but I think that it makes the term "religion" significantly less meaningful.
I make my living writing software, and I'm definitely against copyright infringement. I am, however, pragmatic: these guys weren't costing the economy nearly what the BSA claims they were, and the policies we have in place to prevent these crimes are clearly unreasonable and ineffective. We might as well burn their families at the stake while we're at it--just for some extra pointless theatrics. While we're in the business of hurting people just for the sake of ineffective public spectacle, why not go hog wild?
Is there ever a case where copyright infringement should be punished more seriously than first degree murder? Sure, it's unlikely to happen, but even having the possibility for an overlap like that shows that we have some pretty screwed up priorities.
To start, the fact that alternate theories exist for how we came into existance. We have no problem mentioning that prior to Keppler, Copernicus, and Galileo everyone* believed the earth was the center of the universe, so why not mention everyone* believed god created man?
*By "everyone" I am refering to "western civilization". I'm not certain what scientific theories were favored in other parts of the world.
Well, I would guess that the reason it's generally not done that way is that it would be perceived as biology teachers busting on somebody's religious beliefs. I can't imagine somebody saying something to the effect of, "Western Civilization used to take the Bible literally on creation, but modern science has discarded that view" not raising somebody's ire. I think that a good biology class generally covers discarded ideas like works of Lysenko and Lamarck, which are good for historical perspective. In fact, I think that covering those ideas covers the historical angle fairly well, just like covering older models of the atom and the solar system are useful in illuminating modern theory, whereas digging into a deep discussion of Apollo or the four basic elements is probably stretching the exercise a bit far.Fundamentally, I think the issue is that teaching evolution is sticky enough. It's all good fun to point out that we're not so big on the Apollo explanation of celestial mechanics, but as soon as you bring up a religion that isn't dead, you're stepping on somebody's toes. I have no problem making the statement you recommended, but I have a feeling that it would cause more hurt feelings rather than less.
You've hit upon the problem. Kids aren't being taught what "theory" and "hypothesis" and other very important words mean. I had a great science class my sophomore year in high school. It was taught by a real biologist who worked very hard to instill in us the philosophy of science. She made sure that we understood the tentative nature of all conclusions, that the hallmarks of a good scientific theory are its testability and ability to explain things, and that some things simply aren't testable with the tools of science. She addressed the creation issue simply by saying that evolution is the best result we've come up with an that it's an incredibly powerful theory that explains the data well. Creationism doesn't meet the criteria to be science, but that's not the same thing as saying it's 100% wrong. It just means that a number of the claims that are made simply can't be addressed by science.
I can't say that I remember the Krebs cycle, but I do remember a lot of more meaningful lessons in that class. I think that students should be taught very early on what science is for, what claims it can address, and what claims it simply can't address. It should go without saying that anything taught in a science class is our best understanding of the world, and that their kids may laugh at some of the things they were taught when new data becomes available.
My problem is with how people are proposing to do it. Usually, the people bringing in the critical analysis clauses try to single out evolutionary theory, even though it's among the best supported scientific theories the students will learn. They are also the same people who tried to get creationism into schools years ago and the same people who tried to re-brand creationism as "intelligent design" after their first attempt was rebuffed. I have no doubt that critical analysis clauses are simply getting the foot in the door for more expansive programs designed to satisfy religious crusaders who simply have religious issues with evolutionary theory--regardless of the quality of the science. It's an insult to think that people wouldn't see through this stuff.
If they really cared about students getting a good science education, they'd vote for a program that teaches the best science we have available to us after teaching the kids what it means to be good science. Of course, they never propose anything like that because it would completely obliterate any hope they have of getting creationism/creation science/intelligent design/whatever the label for the day is into classrooms. They're not here to play the science game. They're here to get their own brand of dogma inserted into the curriculum because they couldn't get it past peer review by adults.
Are there any rules that say that cops shouldn't use turn signals... like... ever? I think that in all my years of driving I've only seen police cruisers us their blinkers a handful of times. I can't quite figure that one out. Are they just trying to keep the bad guys guessing?
Such as?
The Bible would be an awfully long book if it went to infinite precision on all of its measurements. Infinitely long, in fact. I'll tend to give it a pass on that one.
Creationists typically use the "critical analysis" problem as an excuse to beat on a theory they don't like. If they were truly concerned about kids absorbing the fundamentals of how science works, they wouldn't push unscientific philosophical wanking like ID into the classroom. They'd be pushing for a lot more work on making kids understand the tentative nature of all scientific results and a lot more discussion of the philosophy and history of science. As it stands, most serious science instructors have learned to recognize "critical analysis" provisions as the Trojan horses they are. That's why they get shouted down. There's too much history to ignore.
Part of good science is repeatability of observations. If somebody could repeat the results of the wool experiment, that would be a very interesting trick and well worth investigating. Do you think it would work if we tried it now?
That being said, I doubt that the equitable use of public resources is the reason for this bill. It smells more like "Think of the children" paranoia. Likewise, why do we need the legislature to step in and manage mundane details that librarians are more than capable of handling for themselves? The librarians I have known have generally been smart people and good stewards of the libraries they run. I don't think that micromanaging their policies and demanding that they dig into their less than copious resources to deal with yet another pointless regulation is a good way to go.