Skip to comments.Why evolution is a political question
Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
click here to read article
That list was of people weilding the power of science and technology for evil. You can’t blame a gun for killing an innocent person.
As for how many lives science has saved, I’d say about every person who has ever been to a hospital, been immunised, never been attacked by wild animals, never been killed by diseases... the list is endless. You sure make for a stubborn luddite, don’t you?
How many religion has killed? Chalk up a list of wars from the beginning of time, that had been started for some idiotic religious reason or the other.(Hint: The list of the inverse would be easier to compile.)
Wow. Profound, uh, observation. However, I think that extending average life expectency from the late 20s to the late 70s counts for something. Again, if you don't like modernity, you're more than welcome to retreat to a cave where you can live off berries and whatever offal you manage to scavenge.
I think he's trying to say we may live longer, but die of SOMETHING anyway.
NIV Hebrews 9:27-28
27. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28. so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
It's not a matter of "counting for something" that is being discussed. It is "saving" lives. Science does not save any lives.
Because of suspicions that the fossil had been illegally smuggled and was likely doctored. Both suspicions turned out to be correct.
The scientific community reacted absolutely perfectly to Archaeoraptor, identifying it as a likely fraud from the outset. It's sad that National Geographic (a popular, not scientific publication) decided to publicize Archaeoraptor for what can only be described as commercial reasons.
Your pedantry is noted without comment.
nope the answer is 2 - Jesus and Stephen
If you’re basing your belief on the results of the test, then it either isn’t based on faith any more, or there’s nothing that isn’t based on faith. Which is it?
Okay. In the span of recorded history there are only 2 people that have ever died in the name of religion.
Oh alright. But you can't take away the fact that science and technology has enabled the life expectancy of people to rise. People today live more than twice as long, on average, as those in the Middle Ages. People are probably much less religious now than the ones used to be in the Middle Ages. Isn't that something to ponder about?
LOL! William Fix evolutionary biologist?! Where do you get this stuff?
Fix is a "pyramidologist" and general "new age," brain dead nutter. (He believes in faith healers, psychics, ufo's, "ancient astronauts," etc, etc, ad nauseum.) He has no formal training, and no research or field experience, in any scientific field. He's not even a (lay) evolutionist. He rejects both evolution and creationism in favor some vague, eclectic, nutty newagey "theory" of "psychogenesis". Creation by psychics, spirits, aliens or "ascended masters" or some such. I have one of his books (The Bone Peddlers) but he's such a nut case and such an idiot that it's hard to make out a positive theory, at least a coherent one.
Yours is truly the most inane post of the week. Thanks for the laugh!
It seems that if science was involved at all (I'm guessing anything involving fire and the wheel, and upwards from there) then it's science's fault. For instance, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were apparently unrelated to the Japanese people attacking us because their God, the Emperor told them to.
I think we're going to need to start retracting medals from war heros who were mistakenly recognized for saving lives. Apparently, they didn't save lives, they've only delayed the inevitable!
Lol! Or the Catholic Church bludgeoning the Jews and “heretics” during the Inquisition(now wait and watch the denials arise), or the Jews and Muslims(well, only the latter, these days) stoning people to death, or the Hindus allowing widows to commit suicide on their dead husband’s pyres or the... it goes on and on and on!
Yeah. There is no such creature.
Apparently you don't savvy how the ear works in reptiles and mammals. There is (and was) already a single ear bone in reptiles -- the stapes -- connecting the inner ear to the jaw. (So reptiles in effect heard, i.e. received sound vibrations, through their jaw.) The stapes was already "halfway" between (and connecting) the jaw and the inner ear.
What happened is that, in the evolution of mammals, additional bones, from the jaw, got incorporated into this linkage. There was never any point where the bones were just floating free and unconnected, nor did they need to move any great distance. Here are some pictures (from this page) that may help:
For completeness here's the side view using the same color codes, and now showing one of the intermediate states:
The pink bone, the reptilian angular, a major jaw bone in reptiles, becomes in mammals the tympanic annulus, the ring of bone that surrounds the ear drum.
The theory of gravity doesn't explain everything about the universe.
As a matter of fact, youd think entropy would prevent it.
Nothing about entropy would prevent evolution.
Dude. That's a comment.
Science is good.
People are probably much less religious now than the ones used to be in the Middle Ages.
The 20th century was probably the most violent and bloody in history.
Anyway, you have to define what religion is.
Is it an attempt to appease supernatural forces through various rituals for purpose of obtaining material benefits? That is superstitution and that is bad.
Is it an attempt to control others for personal aggrandizement? That is bad.
Is it a recognition that there is an absolute, universally recognized set of morals and a power beyond the material to which we must account. That's good. And true.
I’ll assume that your post was intended as sarcasm, and that you are saying that people really do want only TOE taught in schools.
Well no sheite Sherlock.
I posted earlier on this very thread about the impact of Public Education in our Society.
You can support a culture that is involved in censorship and depriving generations from the opportunity to have even an introduction to alternative notions concerning the origin of life.
That probably makes a lot of sense, to a mind numbed product of a cultural attack on just about every idea that was ever contrived that got our modern Civlization where it is/was.
I’m not even sure if we disagree, because I am not familiar with those votes in what to me are obscure places.
Whatever, give your children ignorance, and surely you should anticipate fair compensation.
As for me and my house (to almost quote the Bible here, Joshua 24:15) we shall serve education, knowledge, and understanding of more than the droppings of a bunch of egg heads Fascists who regularly eat more than their fair share of slop at the trough of the fruits of my labors.
Oh, and you really believe that some poor, Chinese peasant farmer had the wherewithal to fake a fossil that took years between it’s *discovery* and NG’s article announcing that find, for scientists to reveal it was a fake?
And NG rejected it out of hand before or after it published the article concerning the find?
It still supports the contention that some people want the ToE to be *proved* so badly that they are willing to fake a fossil in an effort to deceive people. Some one made it and passed it off as authentic. That’s deliberate and I doubt it was a creationist who did it.
Ack, wrong magazine.
Years? Found July 1997. First studied and found to be both halves of the same fossil (1998?). Announced by National Geographic Soceity October 1999. Proved fake January 2000.
And who said the Chinese farmer was a peasant? He could have been an educated or wealthy farmer. He must have been more than a peasant to fake the fossil.
It still supports the contention that some people want the ToE to be *proved* so badly that they are willing to fake a fossil in an effort to deceive people.
More likely he faked the fossil to get more money for it on the black market.
Your distrust of science, most likely because you disagree with some of its results, seems to have made you very cynical and bitter indeed.
Agenda in science? Fraud in science? Aren’t scientists pure as the new driven snow in their quest for knowledge and truth?
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
It May Look Authentic; Heres How to Tell It Isnt
Who woulda thought?
Skeptical. The rest of your attempts to disparage my character is pure speculation. Or would you like to provide some evidence to support your personal attacks?
I doubt it was even a farmer. The person who did this knew what they were doing, what they wanted to demonstrate, what the implications were if the *find* was accepted, and had the technology to do it.
2,000 - 1,997 = 3. Yes, *years* -plural. It should have taken THAT long?
It still provides evidence to support my contention that the person doing it was trying to put the ToE on unquestionable grounds and that some will go to any length to deceive just to support their theory. Something which you keep avoiding addressing. Nor is this the first time, and attempted frauds to try to bolster the ToE have been happening over a period of decades. It doesn’t say much about the evidence supporting the ToE if people have to resort to those kind of tactics to support it.
Sultis said: “I have one of his books (The Bone Peddlers) but he’s such a nut case and such an idiot that it’s hard to make out a positive theory, at least a coherent one.”
And all your maligning refutes the following how? “The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down”
As for your post 172 I’m aware that some bone fragmentsof certain species have been found and there has been a comparison between a few fossils that have been aranged to appear as though there was this great evolutionary process going on- however, as I pointed out in the gold/lead example still stands- simply becausewe find two (or even in htis case more than 2) similiar examples doesn’t mean the two are in any way related- I can set the gold and lead next to each other, and we can postulate all day long about the similarities and suggest that one ‘evolved’ from the other because of these similarities- however you simply don’t get gold from lead, ever- despite many similarities.
In the case of the few examples given of ‘early mammals’, while anyone can set the examples next to others and suggest a connection, it’s quite a stretch to state that there is a ‘clear case of transitions’ going on especially concidering the fact that if we’re to point out common descent, then we have to account for the myriad of differences between all species that simply do not show any such ‘progressions’ if indeed progressions did happen which is doubtful.
The illustrations that you’ve provided don’t point out that the cynodont was 15 times larger than the rat sized Morganucodon. The drawing is deceitful inthat it shows the two as being the same size in an effort to suggest that the supposed bone migration was proportionally consistent and thusly a nice smooth process clear for anyone to view- however, suggesting that a pig sized animal and a rat sized one are related simply because they share some similiar jaw features in slightly different configurations comes down to a highly subjective interpretation/acceptance and is anyhting but ‘clear evidence for transitions’ or even ‘clear evidence for the evolution of a major structural form’
Of more interest to me than a fleeting and scant evidence of a supposed connection between very disimiscant liar species based on a few similiar jaw bone structures that are just as plausibly uniquely created for unique species is the transitions from invertebrates to vertebrates, something you seldom see mentioned for obvious reasons.
We find the liberal subjective views of soem scientists prominently put on display and pushed in the public, yet we very seldom see the opposing views of those in the secular sciences who raise doubts about findings such as the examples you showed.
It would be better for science, and more intellectually honest of them, to present fossil records like you pointed out and to say ‘we think this is how it happened’ rather than to suggest that it is clear ‘evidence that it did happen’ this way. however, it is often presented in the latter manner, especially in forums and on lay blogs, and presernted in such a way that anyone who daresd question it will be lebelled a heritick, or worse yet- gasp- a ‘religious nutbag’
How do you know what scientists are saying?
The newspapers don't carry the full story, neither do the popular magazines. The technical details of science are not exciting enough for popular magazines, and would be beyond most readers' comprehension anyway.
To see what scientists are really doing you have to read journals such as those listed below.
Do you read any of those journals? Ever?
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Forensic Science International
Human Molecular Genetics
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature Reviews Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Trends in Genetics
I had to. It was a requirement to pass the Course.
I wrote about little gram negative rods, acid fast tests, and all of Cocci, things, and a whole lot of other stuff because I wanted to pass the Course, and also have everyone know that I knew how to keep a Journal.
L’Anthropolgie was a good one in your list. The current March 2007 edition has an intriguing article that I might try to actually stumble my way through concerning Ireland where most of my ancestors once lived.
Of course I’ll have to get my secret decoder ring out when it comes to interpreting the real hard stuff. Those frenchies like to use big words when they get all scientifique and stuff.
C’est la vie.
By the way....what the heck does that list of Publications have to do with anything that is going on here?
Are you trying to suggest that because reasonable people will often disagree that reading stuff they disagree with might change their opinions?
Sometimes I enjoy perusing these type threads, and I am sorry that they do not abound here as much as before.
Oh well, what is a sarcastic FReeper poster such as myself supposed to do when he has an itch to post?
I guess that I’ll just continue to go slumming.
we very seldom see the opposing views of those in the secular sciences who raise doubts about findings such as the examples you showed.I merely suggested that he perhaps was not looking in the right places for the battles that go on within science.
And I agree with you--some of the material in those journals can be difficult indeed.
Oh well, what is a sarcastic FReeper poster such as myself supposed to do when he has an itch to post?
I would not recommend the zot threads if you like sarcasm. Some folks over there have become extremely abusive and thin-skinned, and seem to have no sense of humor at all. They've finished eating their young and are turning on each other!
I have always viewed this site as a wonderful playground of sorts, but I do not pay a whole lot of attention to much of the intricacies.
I rarely view the ZOT threads, anymore, and I suppose I won’t be doing so again soon.
I just like being silly (and a brat) reading the articles and comments that I usually find agreeable and like thinkers on, and some other stuff.
Mostly, I am concerned about the pro Troop threads.
Even though, I tend to be quite sarcastic almost always outside of the Canteen, I mean no serious ill will toward any genuine like thinking person out here.
The Crevo threads can’t help but grab my eye just about every time.
[The newspapers don’t carry the full story, neither do the popular magazines. The technical details of science are not exciting enough for popular magazines, and would be beyond most readers’ comprehension anyway.]
Yeah- it would be icky and ‘boring’ to learn that entire ‘anatomically correct’ constructs were assembled from a single tooth, and it would be Waaaay beyond boring to learn that many in the scientific comunity were in fierce opposition to such constructs, or similiarly far-fetched constructs based on scant finds. Much more ‘exciting’ to publish the biAsed evo-friendly news that “a new hominid proves man came out of deepest darkest Africa... and here’s the photos that ‘many’ in the scientific comunity are so excited about”
No sense middying the waters by printing all that ‘technical stuff’ like “the dentrition was more in line with that of known monkeys than with man” or things like “Scientists caught the mistake early on (but ‘unoftunately not before elaborate drawings made their way into every major public journal and onto every news show across the world) that the bones found indicated a fully upright position as compared to the half-bent/stooped figures that you see so eloquently displayed in your highschool biology books”. Rickets as seen in some fossil femur discoveries hailed as ‘ape to man’ specimens is too ‘deep’ a subject for ordinary folks to grasp, and thus should be withheld from them- you know, for their own good.
Things like a fully human skeleton being discovered right above Leakey’s magnificent discovery of an ‘ape to ma’ creature, or that a young childs jaw was found amoung the tar pit “death traps’ that contained thousands of animals, many extinct, or that the bones of all these thousands of animals were scattered all over the place indicating a massive catyclysmic event. These are all somethign the public need not be told- don’t want to confuse them with scientific discoveries that don’t coincide with the preconception that old bones are always found without any evidences that would contradict the dAtes finally sdettled on after umpteen tests turn out just the right dates to support old dates.
Zzzzzzz. wake me when all these ‘boring’ things are finally buried deep enough that we don’t have to bother with them anymore.
Not to worry. All those boring things, like the details of science, are safely tucked away in our major libraries.
You are perfectly safe.
[To see what scientists are really doing you have to read journals such as those listed below.]
No- to see what scientists are doing you need only look as far as programs like national geographic, the discovery channel, PBS, etc etc etc and see them making outlandish claims- presenting them as cold hard facts, and never, ever, admitting that their views are highly controversial even amoung their own peers- m
My beef isn’t with intellectually honest publications that present evidences objectively and fairly, it is with those ‘scientists’ that sully the sciences and shape public opinion in an obvious and blatantly biased manner, and it is with folks that post one sided inmformation on forums without ever ceeding the point that there is much controversy within the secular sciences itself, in an attempt to pursuade the general public that there really aren’t very real and insurmountable problems with evolution. My beef is also with folks who consistently attack the character of anyone that would dare question the imaculate conception of evolution instead of addressing the counterpoints in a fair and objkective manner.
[Not to worry. All those boring things, like the details of science, are safely tucked away in our major libraries.]
And surprisingly banned from public educational material- Yep- you’re right, anyone can go to a library and find the truth of the matter, but alas, why present ALL the facts to our kids in public schools? Especially knowing that 99% of them will never look into the matter more fully? Much better to drill outlandish and innacurate material into their developing minds and to deride those scientists who attempt to make the full truth more fully known so that kids can get a truely objective education. And, much better to go on forums and continue this bias and continue maligning those hwo question the misconceptions and present coutner-evidences.
I noticed a few spelling mistakes in my post- knowck yourself out pointing htem out and ignoring the points of this thread.
LOL - looks like 'ol Coyoteman is doing a little quote-mining!
Okay, who here believes that, at the very least in the case of PBS, they can expect to get a balanced objective reporting that represents to subject fairly?
and let’s not forget the super duper fair and balanced Smithsonian instititue upon who so many impressionable young minds depend onm for information and who don’t have any agenda whatsoever (Please ignore the following paragraph- accusations about bias in S.I are all a figment of our imagination (and congress’ who incidently had to rule on the case)
“Such bias and mistreatment for religious views has happened to Dr. Richard Sternberg.5 Despite having two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology, he was harassed and encouraged to resign from the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History because, as an editor, he allowed the publication of an article that was favorable to intelligent design. A recently released congressional investigative report6 described compelling evidence that Dr. Sternbergs civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. In addition, it was noted that Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials.”
I think everything we do starts as faith. Then we try it.
It either works or doesn’t.
If it doesn’t, we don’t have ‘faith’ in it any more (usually).
If it works; then it moves to the realm of knowledge, and we then have faith in another area.
The original statement said we weren’t ALLOWED to test it; I merely showed that we are.
Luke 181. Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up.
2. He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men.
3. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, `Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4. "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, `Even though I don't fear God or care about men,
5. yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!'"
6. And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says.
7. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?
8. I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
But remember the bad parts, as you pointed out, of religion -- superstition, self-rightousness, legalism, to name three.
Isn't challenging dogma considered heresy?
Do you believe PBS will present a fair, accurate portrayal of scientists and their work? If not, why are you telling people to go there to learn about them?
Thanks for the info, but isn’t there an assumption going on here?
Because there are bones in different creatures, that are close to one another, that one of them MUST have moved, at some point in time in the past, to become a bone with an entirely different function?
I’ll bet there were real CRUNCHY noises while eating for that middle fellow that’s not been found yet.
Now when we can explain the steps for no ears at all, to TWO of them, then that should be interesting.
Again, nice drawings of real old critters. Do you have any actual pictures of these ear bones to post?