You use faith as an argument in one case and discredit it in another.
Actually my point was that faith of some kind is required in order to accept either theory.
The original argument concerned scientific discussion. If you want to have a discussion on religion or philosophy. Fine, go for it. Just don't present it as science.
If memory serves, the original point of my comments was to illustrate the inherent bias in an accepted norm, and by inferrence the importance of a reporter covering multiple approaches to a question. From our discussion it seems we're distinguishing "science" based research as it is currently limited, and "philosophy" based research, while job of the reporter is to report on a world which includes both. Most readers will not limit what they can accept as true to those facts which can be demonstrated by the scientific method, noble though it may be.
Perhaps from this we can also learn that the only critical distinction between the two camps lies in research directly related to the question of origins. Quality research into the present mechanics of our world is strongly encouraged by both camps, so reports including the creationist camp do not harm the secular science camp, apart from this one issue.
"So you expect me to take on faith that Adam existed, spoke to god, and wrote it down and that this is the truth, but you won't except evolution because you can't see it happening. Sorry, doesn't fly."
I've never said I don't accept evolution. I accept both for their usefulness in explaining the world I live in and helping me to make predictions.
Regarding
""Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin - the father of modern evolutionary theory. Explains in detail the concept of natural selection among others."
I keep a copy of this on my bookshelf - one of my favorite sections is in the second or third chapter when Darwin expresses amazement at how easily domestic animals can be adapted to the needs of man. Even he vetures that its seems as if they were made to be that way. It certainly does nothing to create conflict with the creation camp.
Regarding Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild, I quote directy from the article,
"The most surprising result from our analyses was that the strength of viability selection varied inversely with the duration of the episode over which it was measured, whereas estimates based on mating success were insensitive to episode duration. The largest estimates of || based on survival were made when viability selection was measured over short time intervals (days), suggesting that strong directional selection acted only briefly. Over longer time intervals, bursts of strong directional selection may have been tempered by periods of reversal or stasis (5, 20). For example, environmental variation caused selection on Darwin's finches to switch direction over time both within and between generations (e.g., fluctuating selection) such that selection appeared stronger in the short term than in the long (21, 22). In contrast, estimates of || based on mating success did not vary with episode duration, suggesting that sexual selection is less time-sensitive. Importantly, the median magnitudes of selection by means of survival and mate success were similar for short time intervals (days), and diverged only at larger time scales (Fig. 3)."
The author observes a "surpising" finding, that the variation over a longer period of time is considerably lower than the variation over a shorter period. From this fact one can infer that the probability of change over time actually decreases as time increases. The graph used to illustrate this is a classic exponential curve, whereby exponentially greater time is required to achive the same amount of change. The amount of time for actual evolution from species to species would by this graph be effectively infinite.
Concerning, Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry, I will address one of the author's observations about creationism, and his main point:
"There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common ancestry)."
Here, as I've been suggesting, the author acknowledges the reasonability of a creationist perspective, even though its clear that the naturalistic theory is the one preferred in this research.
"Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?"
This is the only disagreement the author presents with a creationist perspective, and rather than assert absolute superiority of one theory over another he simply poses the question, why the v
"That neatly sidesteps the fact that lawyers were the ones who got the laws made so complex that noone but a lawyer can understand it."
Lawyers are a small portion of the population, and they don't work for free. Someone paid the lawyer that wrote the law that you feel is too complex. Blame them.
Seriously, Until I actually learned the tax code I too felt that things were unreasonably complex. Then I learned exactly what capital gains tax was, why we need it, and how it alone accounts for about 2/3 of the text in the Federal Income Tax law.
If you buy a house, and 10 years later sell it at a large profit, your income for that ONE year will be exceptionally high and you'll get launched into a higher bracket. It took you 10 years to make all that money, and anyone else taking 10 years to make that money would have paid a lower tax rate because it was spread out. So to make the rules more fair we recalculate income from this sale (a capital gain) at a lower rate. This makes it more complex, but more fair.
The interest you pay on your home mortgage is tax deductible. We do this because, while you did earn income that year, some of it went into maintaining a place to live so it's not really any gain on your part. This makes it more complex, but more fair.
Children are expensive to raise, so we give you a dax deduction of $3050 each, and a tax credit that changes yearly. These kids will go on to make incomes and pay taxes too. This makes it more complex, but more fair.
SO you see the theme here.... fair, complex, choose two.
Lawyers put criminals in jail far more often than the guilty go free.
Lawyers make the law more clear. Things can be simple or fair but not both.
Lawyers help you navigate complex deals, interract with the diverse laws of states and nations, and can keep your rights from being overrun by the RIAA.
If, after all that you still dislike them, then the next time you're in jail - call your doctor.
1. Hardly a troll. If you want a supporting argument for Genesis, it is easy enough to asser that the events in the time preceeding Adam were described to him by the almighty, recorded either orally or in writing, and finally made their way into the current text. Lots of people in history have claimed to talk with a god, some I respect more than others. But the discussion is not one about creationism, rather it is one about what ideas should journalists present.
2. If you want a rational discussion, put some facts on the table. I really am interested to see what you base your unwavering faith in evolution upon. Every model of the world devised to date has eventually been discredited, so surely you can accept my skepticism of anyone telling me only one theory works.
3. I never said I was a creationist. And my arguments are quite rational if one looks only at the facts. Perhaps we should have a neutral party review the discussion.
"I have listened to both sides. One has no merit."
And you don't think other people should get the same opportunity to listen, via the newspaper?
As a historic reference, holy books have been unnervingly good at maintaining a record of past events. They have directed archaeologists toward ancient cities long thought myth, and preserved a record of civilizations and people long thought fictitious until recently. Consider Pilate for example. But I'm not here to make a defense for one particulare source or religion over another. My whole point is that both sources have merit, and it remains up to the reader to determine from the facts whether a given theory is reasonable.
"Viruses mutate. They are new organisms."
And yet they're still viruses, and they're designated by virologists as strains rather than new species. Actually I visited with a PhD from Mayo Clinic on this one - and virii don't technically qualify as life anyway.
"I have listened to both sides. One has no merit. I do have an open mind, just not so open that my brains fall out. If we're not going to discount some theories as being unlikely, there's no point in researching anything. Why look for truth if you're not going to call some things false?"
F. Scott Fitzgerald once observed that the mark of genius was to be able to entertain two contradictory ideas at the same time. We need not discout any theory, but where it is useful we can pick up our favorite and run with it.
Ok, lets play the game in your court. I can look at the world and say, "Complicated today systems come from inteligent design, we cannot observe any complicated systems arising from other sources, therefore those systems in existence may also have come from intelligent design."
So rather than giving me blanket denials and accusing me of dismissing evolution, put some actual facts on the table for us to consider. Show me some fossils, some stars, or some isotopes. What evidence can you present that cannot be construed as suggesting intelligent design?
"We see some species dying and some surviving. That is the nature of evolution. Biologists discover new species of organisms every day."
Nobody ever suggests these are new organisms, just ones we haven't named yet. This response lacks logical support.
"No, it doesn't."
My example uses modern phenomena to predict past events, its logic is sound. A blanket denial proves nothing.
"Which is zero."
In your eyes perhaps, but reason suggests there is some merit to any ancient document, be it greek myth, native legend, or thumped bible. Zero is just another blanket denial.
"But you would rather ignore that evidence and trust writings of dubious origin claiming, without any supporting evidence, to have witnessed what they could not have. Now who's being intellectually dishonest?"
Two points on this one: 1. I suggest listening to both sides, not ignoring one over they other as you seem to prefer.
2. I challenge you to give me any set of facts purported to support a theory which are not subject to multiple, reasonable, interpretations.
1. We see a tendency in nature toward extinction rather than evolution as the end result of stress on an organism. We can see this in the world right now. This would suggest that things do not evolve, they just die. All things tend toward entropy.
2. We see in fossils in what appears to be a series of more well adapted, and generally more complex, organisms present as time passes. This would suggest that some came first, others came after, and they share a common origin. Ergo they evolved.
3. We have written records which purport to be cotemporaneous with the origin of all things. And take these at the credibility of their authors.
What you seem to be asking me is to accept only the second unequivocally, and not to demand some hard, reproducable experiment that can demonstrate evolution. Rather, I should accept that it happens because one interpretation of the evidence supports it. This is intellectually dishonest.
Actually, the rules of evidence in most civilized jurisdictions permit the introduction of "ancient documents" as proof of the matter asserted simply because when written, there was no contemplation of the present dispute, no other reason for the author to be biased, and no other cotemporaneous evidence.
"You're just not waiting long enough."
What, am I just supposed to take it on faith that it will happen?
"No it isn't. It's a misrepresentation of the theory."
Evidence is defined as anything that makes a fact more or less likely to be true. Reasonable inferrences are permitted to make the connetion. Nature cannot be observed as presently making organisms that are either more or less complex than their predecessors. It is perfectly reasonable to infer from this that nature did not do this in the past. We see similarities in species that seem to come and go as the needs of the organism change, moths change color, from this we infer that over time these changes happen in series as a species evolves. This is the same reasoning we use to support dating of artifacts from the decay of carbon-14 into carbon-12. We see Carbon 14 decay at a certain rate now, and we infer that it always decays at this rate. Thus, assuming we know the initial quantity of carbon-12 we can estimate the age of an object.
The reason in this: Because we see a certain thing happen now, we infer that it happens in the past. The reasoning is the same in all cases. The Evidence is the same in all cases, but there are multiple conclusions one can reach.
"In the case of evolution, there is no conflicting evidence. Just misguided attempts at discrediting a theory using faulty logic and misrepresentation of the findings."
While many arguments (particularly in bars) are misguided and born of bad reasoning, I'd have to disagree. Evidence which contradicts evolution comes from two sources: First, the documents many religions swear by purport to include witnesses, direct conversations with the divine, and all that. While the credibility if such testimony is easily debated, it is evidence nonetheless. But even more than this, evolution asserts that organisms become more complex over time. Since we can't (yet) go back and look, we're left to draw inferrences from things we can observe. Anyone who looks a the world around them sees complex systems degrading into simpler systems. Nature does not presently seem to be making more complex critters. (More resistant to penecillin yes, but not more complex.) This is evidence, and it makes evolution, seem counter-intuitive at best. It does not, however provide a better plan.
"In the case of science, the claims should always be repeatable by independent experimentation. If the results are not repeatable, the witness is discredited."
There are a lot of theories we research which assert phenomena we cannot repeat by experimentation,at least in our lifetimes, like the inorganic oil question or the ever popular evolution. When this is the case, we are left to consider conflicting evidence. This leaves our discussion with its own ultimate questions of fact to research by inference or experiment:
What change does our system need to make so that some guy in a bar won't spend 45 minutes shouting loudly that evolution is just a theory? What change will allow journalists to mention the dissenters without giving them undue weight? What change will get people who mod anything to do with religion on/. as a troll to ligthen up?
"Given your experience though, which does a jury tend to believe more, the mountain of physical evidence or the one witness?"
This will vary depending on the witness and the evidence. A witness who demonstrates good memory, eyesight, and physical presence can very often be used to overcome physical evidence of almost any quality. Twain once observed that fiction was more limited than fact, in that fiction is limited to the realm of the possible. Juries know this too, but the verdict often depends on whether they received all the evidence.
"I never suggested we do any such thing. My complaint all along is the reporters treating all theories as if they are equally valid."
We agree on this point, the problem then lies with the medium and the audience. Television news, for example, will spend almost no time discussing the merits of two conflicting theories. Ask any reporter and they will tell you they provided enough information for the inquiring viewer to learn more on their own. The inquiring viewer, however, has already accepted the new facts because he saw them on TV and is watching reruns of Survivor.
"I don't doubt your claim, but I don't believe it is their faith that pushes them towards research. I fail to see how "knowing" the answer beyond all question can encourage anyone to look for it. Few creationists are searching for the truth rather than attempting to justify their preconceived beliefs."
Just because one presumes to know how the world came to be does not preclude him from wanting to know how it works. In fact I would venture to say that knowlege for its own sake is the driving force behind VERY few research projects. Probably as many as there are creationists who would carry on a discussion as long and reasoned as this one. (I suspect that modern christianity is its own worst enemy, but thats another debate.) We research animals to make our lives easier, we research our environment to make sure we preserve it as best we can, we research ourselves to cure disease, we research our geology and archaeology to look for gold, fame, and oil. Need is what drives secular science, and the aethiest, the creationist and even the scientologist (grudgingly) have the same needs.
In the end, you and I, like the Jury, must be allowed to consider all the evidence. On this we agree. This means news articles including the wacky bits. The wacky bits should be considered for what they are, this is where journalism fails us. Finally in consideration of it all make some conclusion about how the world works.
"doesn't stronger physical evidence contradicting an eyewitness account tend to discredit that witness even under the law?"
When you have a question of fact, the jury has the sole responsibility to determine which evidence is more credible. That is, it is left to individual rational minds to decide which evidence is best in a case, and then for all 12 to reach a consensus. This would be impossible in most cases, so we then apply a "standard of proof" ranging from "Preponderance of the Evidence" meaning something is more likely than not, as applied in civil cases, to "Beyond a reasonable doubt" which is closer to 90% certainty as applied in criminal cases. (This is why OJ was acquitted of the crime, but civilly liable for the wrongful death.)
The mountain of physical evidence can often be impeached by alternative reasoning just as easily as the witness can be impeached as forgetful or a liar.
"This is entirely dependent on the idea that there is no other way to explain it. Science has offered many ways to explain it that don't require the belief in a super-natural intelligent designer."
Science has offered these, but they may not necessarily be better explanations. They're just different and based on physical evidence rather than the eyewitness.
"But they are not equally potentially correct and that's the entire point."
But both have at least enough potential to merit further consideration. This is often the case with any theory forwarded science. If we filter all theories from the public press such that only the one which is most probable under current evidence will be seen, we do ourselves a considerable disservice. I think in the end the question comes down to one of where we would draw the line. How do we determine when a theory is too "silly" to be considered by the public, and who will make this decision?
With respect to the "lazy" issue, I think that even modern christians are totally in favor of doing research to learn more about how our world works, and their preferred theory of origin encourages that research, but in the context of one who studies the great artists. Secular science does the same for us, but in the context of pure humanism. Both have as their end goal the accumulation of knowledge about how our world works, where then is the laziness?
"Maybe I'm just confused, but I don't see how you can make the latter statement given the former. The scientific method is entirely based on confirming your beliefs to the best of your ability. Faith is entirely based on not confirming your beliefs. One is a methodical approach to determining cause and effect. The other is akin to just guessing and hoping you're right. They simply don't compare."
Actually as I understand it religion is more about conforming your beliefs to a set of documents which purport firsthand accounts. Now perhaps I'm biased because my udergraduate studies were in history and I practice law, but if a witness wrote it down - that's pretty good evidence. In the case of our religion issue perhaps where we differ is in the area of giving any credit to cotemporaneous writings.
"It's really not. You can induce that the organisms did have a common origin based on their similarities, but nothing in the argument suggests that the origin in question must be a god."
Perhaps I should clarify, we observe complex systems in nature. We observe that the only origin we can find for complex systems to be newly generated is from intelligent designers - people. Among people, we find neither the intelligence nor the capacity to design these systems (cute little fuzzy ones.) Therefore we induce that some other intelligence must have produced them.
"This, to me, seems to be a little lazy. "We can't think of another reason why this would happen so, rather than look for one, let's make one up.""
It is interesting that the scientific unprovability of the divine was articulated well before the scientific method was developed. Lazy would apply if this notion were developed after the fact as an excuse, but it wasn't.
"Despite our president's recent claims, the jury is not still out."
The example still stands, if SOME oil probably comes from inorganic sources, then both theories are potentially correct even if the majority of evidence currently available seems to support one over the other.
"There have been many different disciplines which explore our world, all using different techniques. Science has been the most successful discipline to allow us to manipulate our environment and make predictions that can help us. Quite simply, it works very well. That we are able to even have this conversation is a direct result of science."
Maybe this is an issue we should resolve first. I Might be convinced that the scientific method is as good a means of learning about our world as has yet been devised. I don't think it is reasonable to assert that when applied by real people it deserves any more credibility than a religion.
Consider from our reporter's perspective: You have people telling you different things. One side may tell you that over time a worm can become a man. The notion to a reasonable mind seems utterly silly. Worms do not grow into people. This side compensates for the unprovablilty of its position by the liberal application of time. We accept that if you flip a coin enough times, you'll get it to land on heads. If we roll the dice enough, we'll get snakeyes... so we extrapolate this out over a few billion years and say if you breed enough worms you'll get people. Unfortunately the math suggests this is utterly improbable. (I think the book was "Rare Earth.")Call this reasoning by deduction.
The other side says: things were created by a divine power you cannot see, feel, touch, hear, taste or smell. But we induce from the evidence - lots of complex organizms that follow similar themes - that they have a common origin. They must have come to be somehow, so we compensate for that seeming impossiblity by ascribing the origin to a God. Unfortunately that god made himself utterly unprovable. (Pick your favorite holy book.) Call this reasoning by induction.
In the end, the real human being must either decide between the infinitely improbable or the utterly unprovable. My assertion, and I hope that of the already discredited reporter of our discussion, is that both sides must be considered by any reasonable mind. Thus both parties should be reported.
(Of course my favorite theme is the inorganic origin of oil or the idea that global warming increases CO2 levels, rather than arguments on the merits of religion because there are so many to choose from. But you get the idea.)
Too many posts start with the assumption that everyone should vote. I can't think what supports this. Everyone who cares, or has an interest should probably vote but consider this:
1. Why should someone with no property care how I get taxed?
2. Why should someone with no children care how schools are operated?
3. Why should someone with 60 productive years ahead of him worry about his retirement plan?
Of course there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, not the norm. It seems to me as long as they know how the system works, 18-25 year old citizens should be left to decide for themselves when it is appropriate to start voting, not pressured.
No, this was more like one of those animated bits they were showing during or about the same time as "the day after" back in the early 1980's. But there is a certain similarity. Thanks.
As I read the article, there is nothing which forces the farmer in Iraq to make use of IP Protected GM seeds. They may continue to use domestic or free varieties. The only issue is that in the past there was no legal protection for seed crop IP in Iraq, and now it is available.
It seems in the end, that if they want to re-use seed crops, they need only refrain from purchasing those which require a license. While in the technology industry, customers may require that you provide products which include IP that must be licensed, When you're making food the rules are different:
You may need to license software from Microsoft to make a product that works on your customer's computer.
You do not need to license grain from ConAgra to make flour that my stomach can digest.
"Science is completely limited by what it can research directly. That's sort of the point."
Sciencee may be so limited, but facts are not. I think we may irreconcilably differ on this point. I prefer to think that the whole point of science is to better the condition of mankind.
"It's very telling that you can't suggest one now. After all, you did direct me to "any creationist textbook" But, here are a few guidelines:"
Very hard on my credibility yes, but to be completely honest I can't find the one I used. The publisher was "A Beka." Perhaps I should state my question more directly. We can synthesize crude oil in the lab from inorganic components. We can generate fossils in the lab in a very small amounts of time. These seem to me to be pretty good evidence that more than one approach to the nature of our world should be explored. You seem pretty fond of the biblical arguments though, so tell me what kind of fact you would accept as supporting an intelligent design theory?
Now that I think about it, why the resistance to facts which tend to discredit certain parts of a given theory? Isn't science all about finding that one fact that wipes out or revises an existing theory - requiring us to develop a new one? When it comes down to it, the scientific method cannot prove anything, only suggest probable connections that allow us to make predictions.
"[1] I'm sorry. I cannot accept the idea that hundreds of different studies in dozens of different disciplines all arrive at roughly the same answer through entirely independent methods and they're all wrong because the government wants it that way."
I have no problem with this notion at all. History is littered with civilizations in which all research included assumptions to which we now give no credibility.
"No it isn't, because there's things called preliminary studies."
So one needs only a little bit of the funding they can't get.
" "We believe it because we believe it" is not sound reasoning."
On the other hand, neither is assuming that any idea worth researching must be based entirely on physical evidencee & facts external humanity. Why is the research that starts with the premise, "These fossils have traits similar to modern mammals, therefore one must have drived from the other," better than research which starts with the premise, "many people belive in a divine power, and similarity between these fossils and modern mammals suggest a common designer."
The reason I do think both camps' research is subject to debate regarding the truth, is that it seems to me that the former limits is ability to speculate to that which it can research directly while the latter, while able to speculate beyond its ability to research tends to get limited by established faiths.
"Show me one creationist textbook that has scientific evidence supporting it the idea."
I borrowed one from a neighbor back in Undergrad. I used it to study for the CLEP exam. From passing it I was able to avoid 8 credits of biology. But seriously if I'm to do any research like this for you, without funding, first tell me what kind of facts you would demand to support a creationist approach?"
Cases like these are the driving force behind modern "cost-shifting" court rules. Many states are now implementing "looser pays" or "If you reject a settlement and win less, you pay" rules.
See your local rules of civil procedure for more information.
The end result is that, when a big company tries to file a weak claim and shut down a small competitor, The competitor now has a much easier time finding and affording lawyers for its defense. Unfortunately, small companies in any United State tend to have a high aversion to risk and buckle under the threat even though the law provides them pretty good protection.
"The point your missing is that the established ideas already have tremendous merit. They aren't believed for the sake of believing as your comparison with Galileo keeps trying to imply. The evidence is already there. Any idea trying to supplant these established ideas without sufficient evidence doesn't have any merit. That's the bloody point. Any idea that does have merit will get funding and researched."
This is circular reasoning. If an idea needs evidence to support it before it gets funding, and needs funding before it can get evidence, the idea can never be explored.
"This is a crock. What draws reporters to fringe science is that a) it is exciting and b) they don't understand science."
This point I concede.
"This is the main problem with your idea of merit. You are assuming that both views are equally valid while one has all the evidence supporting it and the other has none."
Again, the circular reasoning above removes the credibility of this assertion. In addition, there really is quite a collection of evidence to support the young-world folks. I direct you to any creationist textbook. (Which of course you may choose to discount because of bias and being outside the mainstream of science.)
"His scientific credibility is certainly not enhanced by his use of an alias for much of his work, nor by his flippant dismissal of the cosmic microwave background as evidence for time scales of universal expansion."
I've been wondering lately why it is we assume that someone who uses an alias is less credible? Back in the day aliases were almost universally used when a person wrote something. Consider Publius who wrote the Federalist Papers, or Mark Twain...
By the way I really do mean to email you about that lawyer thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You use faith as an argument in one case and discredit it in another.
Actually my point was that faith of some kind is required in order to accept either theory.
The original argument concerned scientific discussion. If you want to have a discussion on religion or philosophy. Fine, go for it. Just don't present it as science.
If memory serves, the original point of my comments was to illustrate the inherent bias in an accepted norm, and by inferrence the importance of a reporter covering multiple approaches to a question. From our discussion it seems we're distinguishing "science" based research as it is currently limited, and "philosophy" based research, while job of the reporter is to report on a world which includes both. Most readers will not limit what they can accept as true to those facts which can be demonstrated by the scientific method, noble though it may be.
Perhaps from this we can also learn that the only critical distinction between the two camps lies in research directly related to the question of origins. Quality research into the present mechanics of our world is strongly encouraged by both camps, so reports including the creationist camp do not harm the secular science camp, apart from this one issue.
"So you expect me to take on faith that Adam existed, spoke to god, and wrote it down and that this is the truth, but you won't except evolution because you can't see it happening. Sorry, doesn't fly."
I've never said I don't accept evolution. I accept both for their usefulness in explaining the world I live in and helping me to make predictions.
Regarding
""Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin - the father of modern evolutionary theory. Explains in detail the concept of natural selection among others."
I keep a copy of this on my bookshelf - one of my favorite sections is in the second or third chapter when Darwin expresses amazement at how easily domestic animals can be adapted to the needs of man. Even he vetures that its seems as if they were made to be that way. It certainly does nothing to create conflict with the creation camp.
Regarding Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild, I quote directy from the article,
"The most surprising result from our analyses was that the strength of viability selection varied inversely with the duration of the episode over which it was measured, whereas estimates based on mating success were insensitive to episode duration. The largest estimates of || based on survival were made when viability selection was measured over short time intervals (days), suggesting that strong directional selection acted only briefly. Over longer time intervals, bursts of strong directional selection may have been tempered by periods of reversal or stasis (5, 20). For example, environmental variation caused selection on Darwin's finches to switch direction over time both within and between generations (e.g., fluctuating selection) such that selection appeared stronger in the short term than in the long (21, 22). In contrast, estimates of || based on mating success did not vary with episode duration, suggesting that sexual selection is less time-sensitive. Importantly, the median magnitudes of selection by means of survival and mate success were similar for short time intervals (days), and diverged only at larger time scales (Fig. 3)."
The author observes a "surpising" finding, that the variation over a longer period of time is considerably lower than the variation over a shorter period. From this fact one can infer that the probability of change over time actually decreases as time increases. The graph used to illustrate this is a classic exponential curve, whereby exponentially greater time is required to achive the same amount of change. The amount of time for actual evolution from species to species would by this graph be effectively infinite.
Concerning, Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry, I will address one of the author's observations about creationism, and his main point:
"There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common ancestry)."
Here, as I've been suggesting, the author acknowledges the reasonability of a creationist perspective, even though its clear that the naturalistic theory is the one preferred in this research.
"Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?"
This is the only disagreement the author presents with a creationist perspective, and rather than assert absolute superiority of one theory over another he simply poses the question, why the v
"That neatly sidesteps the fact that lawyers were the ones who got the laws made so complex that noone but a lawyer can understand it."
Lawyers are a small portion of the population, and they don't work for free. Someone paid the lawyer that wrote the law that you feel is too complex. Blame them.
Seriously, Until I actually learned the tax code I too felt that things were unreasonably complex. Then I learned exactly what capital gains tax was, why we need it, and how it alone accounts for about 2/3 of the text in the Federal Income Tax law.
If you buy a house, and 10 years later sell it at a large profit, your income for that ONE year will be exceptionally high and you'll get launched into a higher bracket. It took you 10 years to make all that money, and anyone else taking 10 years to make that money would have paid a lower tax rate because it was spread out. So to make the rules more fair we recalculate income from this sale (a capital gain) at a lower rate. This makes it more complex, but more fair.
The interest you pay on your home mortgage is tax deductible. We do this because, while you did earn income that year, some of it went into maintaining a place to live so it's not really any gain on your part. This makes it more complex, but more fair.
Children are expensive to raise, so we give you a dax deduction of $3050 each, and a tax credit that changes yearly. These kids will go on to make incomes and pay taxes too. This makes it more complex, but more fair.
SO you see the theme here.... fair, complex, choose two.
I protest the bias against "smarmy lawyers."
Lawyers put criminals in jail far more often than the guilty go free.
Lawyers make the law more clear. Things can be simple or fair but not both.
Lawyers help you navigate complex deals, interract with the diverse laws of states and nations, and can keep your rights from being overrun by the RIAA.
If, after all that you still dislike them, then the next time you're in jail - call your doctor.
1. Hardly a troll. If you want a supporting argument for Genesis, it is easy enough to asser that the events in the time preceeding Adam were described to him by the almighty, recorded either orally or in writing, and finally made their way into the current text. Lots of people in history have claimed to talk with a god, some I respect more than others. But the discussion is not one about creationism, rather it is one about what ideas should journalists present.
2. If you want a rational discussion, put some facts on the table. I really am interested to see what you base your unwavering faith in evolution upon. Every model of the world devised to date has eventually been discredited, so surely you can accept my skepticism of anyone telling me only one theory works.
3. I never said I was a creationist. And my arguments are quite rational if one looks only at the facts. Perhaps we should have a neutral party review the discussion.
"I have listened to both sides. One has no merit."
And you don't think other people should get the same opportunity to listen, via the newspaper?
As a historic reference, holy books have been unnervingly good at maintaining a record of past events. They have directed archaeologists toward ancient cities long thought myth, and preserved a record of civilizations and people long thought fictitious until recently. Consider Pilate for example. But I'm not here to make a defense for one particulare source or religion over another. My whole point is that both sources have merit, and it remains up to the reader to determine from the facts whether a given theory is reasonable.
"Viruses mutate. They are new organisms."
And yet they're still viruses, and they're designated by virologists as strains rather than new species. Actually I visited with a PhD from Mayo Clinic on this one - and virii don't technically qualify as life anyway.
"I have listened to both sides. One has no merit. I do have an open mind, just not so open that my brains fall out. If we're not going to discount some theories as being unlikely, there's no point in researching anything. Why look for truth if you're not going to call some things false?"
F. Scott Fitzgerald once observed that the mark of genius was to be able to entertain two contradictory ideas at the same time. We need not discout any theory, but where it is useful we can pick up our favorite and run with it.
Ok, lets play the game in your court. I can look at the world and say, "Complicated today systems come from inteligent design, we cannot observe any complicated systems arising from other sources, therefore those systems in existence may also have come from intelligent design."
So rather than giving me blanket denials and accusing me of dismissing evolution, put some actual facts on the table for us to consider. Show me some fossils, some stars, or some isotopes. What evidence can you present that cannot be construed as suggesting intelligent design?
"We see some species dying and some surviving. That is the nature of evolution. Biologists discover new species of organisms every day."
Nobody ever suggests these are new organisms, just ones we haven't named yet. This response lacks logical support.
"No, it doesn't."
My example uses modern phenomena to predict past events, its logic is sound. A blanket denial proves nothing.
"Which is zero."
In your eyes perhaps, but reason suggests there is some merit to any ancient document, be it greek myth, native legend, or thumped bible. Zero is just another blanket denial.
"But you would rather ignore that evidence and trust writings of dubious origin claiming, without any supporting evidence, to have witnessed what they could not have. Now who's being intellectually dishonest?"
Two points on this one:
1. I suggest listening to both sides, not ignoring one over they other as you seem to prefer.
2. I challenge you to give me any set of facts purported to support a theory which are not subject to multiple, reasonable, interpretations.
So what is our result then?
1. We see a tendency in nature toward extinction rather than evolution as the end result of stress on an organism. We can see this in the world right now. This would suggest that things do not evolve, they just die. All things tend toward entropy.
2. We see in fossils in what appears to be a series of more well adapted, and generally more complex, organisms present as time passes. This would suggest that some came first, others came after, and they share a common origin. Ergo they evolved.
3. We have written records which purport to be cotemporaneous with the origin of all things. And take these at the credibility of their authors.
What you seem to be asking me is to accept only the second unequivocally, and not to demand some hard, reproducable experiment that can demonstrate evolution. Rather, I should accept that it happens because one interpretation of the evidence supports it. This is intellectually dishonest.
"Hearsay at best."
Actually, the rules of evidence in most civilized jurisdictions permit the introduction of "ancient documents" as proof of the matter asserted simply because when written, there was no contemplation of the present dispute, no other reason for the author to be biased, and no other cotemporaneous evidence.
"You're just not waiting long enough."
What, am I just supposed to take it on faith that it will happen?
"No it isn't. It's a misrepresentation of the theory."
Evidence is defined as anything that makes a fact more or less likely to be true. Reasonable inferrences are permitted to make the connetion. Nature cannot be observed as presently making organisms that are either more or less complex than their predecessors. It is perfectly reasonable to infer from this that nature did not do this in the past. We see similarities in species that seem to come and go as the needs of the organism change, moths change color, from this we infer that over time these changes happen in series as a species evolves. This is the same reasoning we use to support dating of artifacts from the decay of carbon-14 into carbon-12. We see Carbon 14 decay at a certain rate now, and we infer that it always decays at this rate. Thus, assuming we know the initial quantity of carbon-12 we can estimate the age of an object.
The reason in this: Because we see a certain thing happen now, we infer that it happens in the past. The reasoning is the same in all cases. The Evidence is the same in all cases, but there are multiple conclusions one can reach.
(I really should figure out the italics switch)
We're soooo close...
"In the case of evolution, there is no conflicting evidence. Just misguided attempts at discrediting a theory using faulty logic and misrepresentation of the findings."
While many arguments (particularly in bars) are misguided and born of bad reasoning, I'd have to disagree. Evidence which contradicts evolution comes from two sources: First, the documents many religions swear by purport to include witnesses, direct conversations with the divine, and all that. While the credibility if such testimony is easily debated, it is evidence nonetheless. But even more than this, evolution asserts that organisms become more complex over time. Since we can't (yet) go back and look, we're left to draw inferrences from things we can observe. Anyone who looks a the world around them sees complex systems degrading into simpler systems. Nature does not presently seem to be making more complex critters. (More resistant to penecillin yes, but not more complex.) This is evidence, and it makes evolution, seem counter-intuitive at best. It does not, however provide a better plan.
I agree, except for this one point:
/. as a troll to ligthen up?
"In the case of science, the claims should always be repeatable by independent experimentation. If the results are not repeatable, the witness is discredited."
There are a lot of theories we research which assert phenomena we cannot repeat by experimentation,at least in our lifetimes, like the inorganic oil question or the ever popular evolution. When this is the case, we are left to consider conflicting evidence. This leaves our discussion with its own ultimate questions of fact to research by inference or experiment:
What change does our system need to make so that some guy in a bar won't spend 45 minutes shouting loudly that evolution is just a theory? What change will allow journalists to mention the dissenters without giving them undue weight? What change will get people who mod anything to do with religion on
My theory is education.
Large sections of the population use computers heavily.
Ergo large sections of the population may develop glaucoma..
Ergo Large sections of the population will have an interest in legalizing marijuana as a cheap means to treat the problem
Ergo the Libertarians now have a drawing card to people who would otherwise find the whole thing a bit kookie.
I think we're getting somewhere....
"Given your experience though, which does a jury tend to believe more, the mountain of physical evidence or the one witness?"
This will vary depending on the witness and the evidence. A witness who demonstrates good memory, eyesight, and physical presence can very often be used to overcome physical evidence of almost any quality. Twain once observed that fiction was more limited than fact, in that fiction is limited to the realm of the possible. Juries know this too, but the verdict often depends on whether they received all the evidence.
"I never suggested we do any such thing. My complaint all along is the reporters treating all theories as if they are equally valid."
We agree on this point, the problem then lies with the medium and the audience. Television news, for example, will spend almost no time discussing the merits of two conflicting theories. Ask any reporter and they will tell you they provided enough information for the inquiring viewer to learn more on their own. The inquiring viewer, however, has already accepted the new facts because he saw them on TV and is watching reruns of Survivor.
"I don't doubt your claim, but I don't believe it is their faith that pushes them towards research. I fail to see how "knowing" the answer beyond all question can encourage anyone to look for it. Few creationists are searching for the truth rather than attempting to justify their preconceived beliefs."
Just because one presumes to know how the world came to be does not preclude him from wanting to know how it works. In fact I would venture to say that knowlege for its own sake is the driving force behind VERY few research projects. Probably as many as there are creationists who would carry on a discussion as long and reasoned as this one. (I suspect that modern christianity is its own worst enemy, but thats another debate.) We research animals to make our lives easier, we research our environment to make sure we preserve it as best we can, we research ourselves to cure disease, we research our geology and archaeology to look for gold, fame, and oil. Need is what drives secular science, and the aethiest, the creationist and even the scientologist (grudgingly) have the same needs.
In the end, you and I, like the Jury, must be allowed to consider all the evidence. On this we agree. This means news articles including the wacky bits. The wacky bits should be considered for what they are, this is where journalism fails us. Finally in consideration of it all make some conclusion about how the world works.
"doesn't stronger physical evidence contradicting an eyewitness account tend to discredit that witness even under the law?"
When you have a question of fact, the jury has the sole responsibility to determine which evidence is more credible. That is, it is left to individual rational minds to decide which evidence is best in a case, and then for all 12 to reach a consensus. This would be impossible in most cases, so we then apply a "standard of proof" ranging from "Preponderance of the Evidence" meaning something is more likely than not, as applied in civil cases, to "Beyond a reasonable doubt" which is closer to 90% certainty as applied in criminal cases. (This is why OJ was acquitted of the crime, but civilly liable for the wrongful death.)
The mountain of physical evidence can often be impeached by alternative reasoning just as easily as the witness can be impeached as forgetful or a liar.
"This is entirely dependent on the idea that there is no other way to explain it. Science has offered many ways to explain it that don't require the belief in a super-natural intelligent designer."
Science has offered these, but they may not necessarily be better explanations. They're just different and based on physical evidence rather than the eyewitness.
"But they are not equally potentially correct and that's the entire point."
But both have at least enough potential to merit further consideration. This is often the case with any theory forwarded science. If we filter all theories from the public press such that only the one which is most probable under current evidence will be seen, we do ourselves a considerable disservice. I think in the end the question comes down to one of where we would draw the line. How do we determine when a theory is too "silly" to be considered by the public, and who will make this decision?
With respect to the "lazy" issue, I think that even modern christians are totally in favor of doing research to learn more about how our world works, and their preferred theory of origin encourages that research, but in the context of one who studies the great artists. Secular science does the same for us, but in the context of pure humanism. Both have as their end goal the accumulation of knowledge about how our world works, where then is the laziness?
"Maybe I'm just confused, but I don't see how you can make the latter statement given the former. The scientific method is entirely based on confirming your beliefs to the best of your ability. Faith is entirely based on not confirming your beliefs. One is a methodical approach to determining cause and effect. The other is akin to just guessing and hoping you're right. They simply don't compare."
Actually as I understand it religion is more about conforming your beliefs to a set of documents which purport firsthand accounts. Now perhaps I'm biased because my udergraduate studies were in history and I practice law, but if a witness wrote it down - that's pretty good evidence. In the case of our religion issue perhaps where we differ is in the area of giving any credit to cotemporaneous writings.
"It's really not. You can induce that the organisms did have a common origin based on their similarities, but nothing in the argument suggests that the origin in question must be a god."
Perhaps I should clarify, we observe complex systems in nature. We observe that the only origin we can find for complex systems to be newly generated is from intelligent designers - people. Among people, we find neither the intelligence nor the capacity to design these systems (cute little fuzzy ones.) Therefore we induce that some other intelligence must have produced them.
"This, to me, seems to be a little lazy. "We can't think of another reason why this would happen so, rather than look for one, let's make one up.""
It is interesting that the scientific unprovability of the divine was articulated well before the scientific method was developed. Lazy would apply if this notion were developed after the fact as an excuse, but it wasn't.
"Despite our president's recent claims, the jury is not still out."
The example still stands, if SOME oil probably comes from inorganic sources, then both theories are potentially correct even if the majority of evidence currently available seems to support one over the other.
We better hurry up and give up some rights before the terrorists start pumping water underground and causing earthquakes.
"There have been many different disciplines which explore our world, all using different techniques. Science has been the most successful discipline to allow us to manipulate our environment and make predictions that can help us. Quite simply, it works very well. That we are able to even have this conversation is a direct result of science."
Maybe this is an issue we should resolve first. I Might be convinced that the scientific method is as good a means of learning about our world as has yet been devised. I don't think it is reasonable to assert that when applied by real people it deserves any more credibility than a religion.
Consider from our reporter's perspective: You have people telling you different things. One side may tell you that over time a worm can become a man. The notion to a reasonable mind seems utterly silly. Worms do not grow into people. This side compensates for the unprovablilty of its position by the liberal application of time. We accept that if you flip a coin enough times, you'll get it to land on heads. If we roll the dice enough, we'll get snakeyes... so we extrapolate this out over a few billion years and say if you breed enough worms you'll get people. Unfortunately the math suggests this is utterly improbable. (I think the book was "Rare Earth.")Call this reasoning by deduction.
The other side says: things were created by a divine power you cannot see, feel, touch, hear, taste or smell. But we induce from the evidence - lots of complex organizms that follow similar themes - that they have a common origin. They must have come to be somehow, so we compensate for that seeming impossiblity by ascribing the origin to a God. Unfortunately that god made himself utterly unprovable. (Pick your favorite holy book.) Call this reasoning by induction.
In the end, the real human being must either decide between the infinitely improbable or the utterly unprovable. My assertion, and I hope that of the already discredited reporter of our discussion, is that both sides must be considered by any reasonable mind. Thus both parties should be reported.
(Of course my favorite theme is the inorganic origin of oil or the idea that global warming increases CO2 levels, rather than arguments on the merits of religion because there are so many to choose from. But you get the idea.)
Too many posts start with the assumption that everyone should vote. I can't think what supports this. Everyone who cares, or has an interest should probably vote but consider this:
1. Why should someone with no property care how I get taxed?
2. Why should someone with no children care how schools are operated?
3. Why should someone with 60 productive years ahead of him worry about his retirement plan?
Of course there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, not the norm. It seems to me as long as they know how the system works, 18-25 year old citizens should be left to decide for themselves when it is appropriate to start voting, not pressured.
No, this was more like one of those animated bits they were showing during or about the same time as "the day after" back in the early 1980's. But there is a certain similarity. Thanks.
As I read the article, there is nothing which forces the farmer in Iraq to make use of IP Protected GM seeds. They may continue to use domestic or free varieties. The only issue is that in the past there was no legal protection for seed crop IP in Iraq, and now it is available.
It seems in the end, that if they want to re-use seed crops, they need only refrain from purchasing those which require a license. While in the technology industry, customers may require that you provide products which include IP that must be licensed, When you're making food the rules are different:
You may need to license software from Microsoft to make a product that works on your customer's computer.
You do not need to license grain from ConAgra to make flour that my stomach can digest.
"Science is completely limited by what it can research directly. That's sort of the point."
Sciencee may be so limited, but facts are not. I think we may irreconcilably differ on this point. I prefer to think that the whole point of science is to better the condition of mankind.
"It's very telling that you can't suggest one now. After all, you did direct me to "any creationist textbook" But, here are a few guidelines:"
Very hard on my credibility yes, but to be completely honest I can't find the one I used. The publisher was "A Beka." Perhaps I should state my question more directly. We can synthesize crude oil in the lab from inorganic components. We can generate fossils in the lab in a very small amounts of time. These seem to me to be pretty good evidence that more than one approach to the nature of our world should be explored. You seem pretty fond of the biblical arguments though, so tell me what kind of fact you would accept as supporting an intelligent design theory?
Now that I think about it, why the resistance to facts which tend to discredit certain parts of a given theory? Isn't science all about finding that one fact that wipes out or revises an existing theory - requiring us to develop a new one? When it comes down to it, the scientific method cannot prove anything, only suggest probable connections that allow us to make predictions.
"[1] I'm sorry. I cannot accept the idea that hundreds of different studies in dozens of different disciplines all arrive at roughly the same answer through entirely independent methods and they're all wrong because the government wants it that way."
I have no problem with this notion at all. History is littered with civilizations in which all research included assumptions to which we now give no credibility.
"No it isn't, because there's things called preliminary studies."
So one needs only a little bit of the funding they can't get.
" "We believe it because we believe it" is not sound reasoning."
On the other hand, neither is assuming that any idea worth researching must be based entirely on physical evidencee & facts external humanity. Why is the research that starts with the premise, "These fossils have traits similar to modern mammals, therefore one must have drived from the other," better than research which starts with the premise, "many people belive in a divine power, and similarity between these fossils and modern mammals suggest a common designer."
The reason I do think both camps' research is subject to debate regarding the truth, is that it seems to me that the former limits is ability to speculate to that which it can research directly while the latter, while able to speculate beyond its ability to research tends to get limited by established faiths.
"Show me one creationist textbook that has scientific evidence supporting it the idea."
I borrowed one from a neighbor back in Undergrad. I used it to study for the CLEP exam. From passing it I was able to avoid 8 credits of biology. But seriously if I'm to do any research like this for you, without funding, first tell me what kind of facts you would demand to support a creationist approach?"
Cases like these are the driving force behind modern "cost-shifting" court rules. Many states are now implementing "looser pays" or "If you reject a settlement and win less, you pay" rules.
See your local rules of civil procedure for more information.
The end result is that, when a big company tries to file a weak claim and shut down a small competitor, The competitor now has a much easier time finding and affording lawyers for its defense. Unfortunately, small companies in any United State tend to have a high aversion to risk and buckle under the threat even though the law provides them pretty good protection.
"The point your missing is that the established ideas already have tremendous merit. They aren't believed for the sake of believing as your comparison with Galileo keeps trying to imply. The evidence is already there. Any idea trying to supplant these established ideas without sufficient evidence doesn't have any merit. That's the bloody point. Any idea that does have merit will get funding and researched."
This is circular reasoning. If an idea needs evidence to support it before it gets funding, and needs funding before it can get evidence, the idea can never be explored.
"This is a crock. What draws reporters to fringe science is that a) it is exciting and b) they don't understand science."
This point I concede.
"This is the main problem with your idea of merit. You are assuming that both views are equally valid while one has all the evidence supporting it and the other has none."
Again, the circular reasoning above removes the credibility of this assertion. In addition, there really is quite a collection of evidence to support the young-world folks. I direct you to any creationist textbook. (Which of course you may choose to discount because of bias and being outside the mainstream of science.)
"His scientific credibility is certainly not enhanced by his use of an alias for much of his work, nor by his flippant dismissal of the cosmic microwave background as evidence for time scales of universal expansion."
I've been wondering lately why it is we assume that someone who uses an alias is less credible? Back in the day aliases were almost universally used when a person wrote something. Consider Publius who wrote the Federalist Papers, or Mark Twain...
By the way I really do mean to email you about that lawyer thing.