Posted on 10/21/2006 8:10:12 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
I have been looking for a post on which to vent my newest insight about environmentalism, endangered species and global warming.
It strikes me as significant that the enviro crowd bases its principles on opposition to science and nature. Allow me to explain.
Evolution teaches the extermination of species. A full 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Presumably they have been replaced by species better adapted to a constantly changing environment.
Species become extinct based on their inability to exist in an environment that fluctuates beyond the edges of their tolerance.
So, this is too easy. How is it, then, that we should seek to stop environmental change and preserve species from extinction? Does not that effort conflict with nature?
This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that eco fanatics fear nature, fear animals, and fear change. They seek an environment in which nothing ever changes. Why, the very notion of evolution is in direct conflict with the goals of the species, climate and eco crowd.
Blaming humans for natural processes of change is particularly specious. Nature has produced humans, according to the evolutionists, as the most advanced form of complex life. Are we to believe that nature has created its own destroyer?
The endangered species act is, without question, the single most important piece of nature legistlation ever written. Its implementation, however, is governed by the belief that humans despoil nature. It is left to bureaucrats, then, to protect species from the rampages of the deranged human crowd.
As a consequence picking up an empty turtle egg casing on the beach is punishable by near death experience. The sea turtle is a sacred and holy creature, not to be touched by the undesignated. This stupid policy, of course, is slowly exterminating sea turtles.
Their hatchlings are completely consumed every year by marauding gulls, fish and their ilk. There is no replacement population. The same is true of every so-called endangered species. Nature, of course, wishes for nothing more than the continued extermination of species no longer able to get along with the red-in-tooth-and-claw-crowd.
The only hope for the continuation of countless species is the husbandry of interested humans. This solution, according to the wisdom of those charged with enforcing endangered species legislation, is strictly forbidden.
Every animal introduced into the pet industry is now flourishing beyond simple replacement numbers. Whether it is corals, reptiles, fish, small mammals, birds, hoof stock, all captive bred populations are flourishing. It is only those designated threatened and endangered that are systematically required to die off.
If species are to be protected it will be because the enormous resources of the private husbandry sector are encouraged to do what they do best, preserve and propogate.
Chew on this, nutbars.
Perhaps you should reread my post. It says nothing about proof.
By the way, scientists are aware that nothing in science can be proved; non-scientists are often unaware of this.
In science, a theory is the goal. When a theory has been supported by all available facts, and makes verifiable predictions, it is a very useful tool. But no theory in science is ever proved.
Take a look at the following definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
There are millions of facts out there. But facts alone have limited use and lack meaning. The theory of evolution organizes those facts into a coherent whole with far greater usefulness.
You really should read some of the scientific definitions I post (repeated here for your convenience and for the lurkers). Evolution is not defended with "proof and facts" because the theory of evolution is made up of facts and an organizing theory.
As I explained in a previous post, but which you seem to have ignored, science does not deal with proof. Your insistence on using this term says a lot about your lack of a scientific background. You will be a lot more effective in your arguments if you can get the basic terms correct.
Secondly, in science a theory is not a "guess." That is the layman's use of the term. (See the definitions.) A scientific theory has to organize all relevant facts, it has to have withstood many challenges, and it has to make testable predictions. A guess does not have to do any of these things.
Scientists do not have "faith" in what they do. They have confidence in the reliability of the methods based on hundreds of years of experience. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no material evidence. That certainly is not the case for science and the scientific method. Again, see the definitions.
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
Every animal introduced into the pet industry is now flourishing beyond simple replacement numbers. Whether it is corals, reptiles, fish, small mammals, birds, hoof stock, all captive bred populations are flourishing. It is only those designated threatened and endangered that are systematically required to die off.Very true! That's why I want to see more chimpanzees as pets. Extinction problem solved. But it won't happen, for the reasons you state.If species are to be protected it will be because the enormous resources of the private husbandry sector are encouraged to do what they do best, preserve and propogate.
I think this is further evidence that leftism is a belief system that poisons the well for every other topic or societal concern it touches, even if those other topics are themselves perfectly valid.
What's frustrating to me is, so many conservatives have let themselves get suckered into the trap of assuming that it's these other topics or concerns that are inherently wrong-headed, when in fact it's the silly arguments & approaches that the leftists have used whenever they jump onto the bandwagon to fix some particular problem, that have poisoned the well & made the concern itself look silly.
A fish-dog or amphibian-bird, or whatever, a thing far off the predicted tree of common descent, would be evidence against evolution. ID, a much looser hypothesis, would still be "fulfilled," since no find ever can falsify the idea that "God could have done THAT." However, that theory doesn't really tell you anything about what to expect. Thus, it's useless. There is a strong form of literal-Genesis creation which makes very strong predictions which were falsified before the end of the 19th century. That's useless, too, because it's wrong.
But it's a very common typo that only creationists seem to make. I'm serious about this: I suspect it reveals a type of brain organization that's different from that of other people.
Now, if creationism really is the more valid conclusion to be gotten from the facts that we all have access to, then this cognitive quirk would be a marker for a superior mind, and not a cognitive deficit as you think I'm assuming it is. I think you can agree with me that keeping singulars & plurals in agreement is the correct way to build a noun/verb phrase, and so if someone has problems keeping them in agreement we'd normally say that they have a cognitive deficiency that they have to work on overcoming. But there are other examples of cognitive deficits being correlated with superior cognitive skills in other areas.
For example: Asperger's syndrome is a "problem" that isn't necessarily a problem overall. "Suffers" of this syndrome may have a hard time interacting with other people, but they are great at focusing their attention on intricate tasks that can require much thought to carry out.
So, since creationism is clearly the superior inference from the facts, and creationists seem to have a higher tendency to exhibit this particular grammatical quirk, it follows that the cognitive "deficit" that causes singular-plural disagreement when they write sentences must be a side-effect of a superior mind. I'm just wondering if those creationists who have this quirk have ever noticed it in their day-to-day lives.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense - Tom Clancy
If you want to know the data, you have to read the literature. Here are the contents of the current issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Vol. 131, No. 3), just one of many journals dealing with the subject:
- Hindlimb adaptations in Ourayia and Chipetaia, relatively large-bodied omomyine primates from the Middle Eocene of Utah
- Khoratpithecus piriyai, a Late Miocene hominoid of Thailand
- Continuity of interpersonal violence between Nubian communities
- Late Chachapoya population structure prior to Inka conquest
- Osteoporosis in a population from medieval Norway
- Spondylolysis, spondylolisthesis, and lumbo-sacral morphology in a medieval English skeletal population
- Test of the Lamendin aging method on two historic skeletal samples
- Quantitative analysis of human mandibular shape using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics
- Orangutan positional behavior and the nature of arboreal locomotion in Hominoidea
- Elastic properties of external cortical bone in the craniofacial skeleton of the rhesus monkey
- Brief Communication: Linear enamel hypoplasia and the shift from irregular to regular provisioning in Cayo Santiago rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta)
- Evolution of genetically correlated traits: Tooth size and body size in baboons
- Brief communication: Identification of the authentic ancient DNA sequence in a human bone contaminated with modern DNA
- Ontogeny of facial dimorphism and patterns of individual development within one human population
A lot of this information is available online. Dig in and have fun!
But I'm more suspicious of the tale than of the alleged fact..
I must be not qualified since I presently am wondering who was the parents of the third human on this planet..
You're thinking there was some "poof" event and there was a "first human." What are the odds of that?
That is why you need to take a look at the actual evidence. The millions of facts, in these journals and elsewhere, lay the foundation for the theory of evolution. The theory must account for the facts. Once you are able to understand the facts underlying the theory, you will have an appreciation of the degree to which the theory either does, or does not, flow from those facts.
Folks are not just making this up out of thin air. There really is a huge amount of data out there. Ichny posts some of it occasionally, but there is so much that it is hard to grasp sometimes. And what he posts is only the tip of the iceberg.
I must be not qualified since I presently am wondering who was the parents of the third human on this planet..
Sorry, not my department.
Jennyp,
It is absolutely critical to point the finger at policies that destroy species. Current political thinking about nature is precisely the opposite of what is needed.
The very idea that government policies can protect nature from the private sector is pure fascist fanaticism. Such policies must be opposed. Talking with elected officials is the only way to achieve this. Bureaucrats are deaf to any change in their dominant attitudes.
Our representatives must be made to understand that legal opposition to human interaction with animals is not the business of government. It is obscene. It is bad for animals. It is bad for humans. It is bad policy.
I vigorously oppose the torture and abuse of animals. I also vigorously oppose government restricting access to animals.
Reposted endlessly on FR. How many times, O Darwin! How many times!
Until creationists learn how scientists use terms.
It may be standard practice in apologetics to make up new definitions to suit one's argument, but that is not the case in science.
If you have disagreements with the definitions, there is a thread linked in the post which is dedicated to refining those definitions. Feel free to post your suggested revisions and ping me.
My, goodness, you strike the martinet pose so well! Shame there's nothing behind it but a threat to repeat yet more of the same, and more of the same again tomorrow.
But people can be reminded that your list is nothing more than a recurring billboard asserting your personal agenda.
We all own dictionaries. Nobody has to sign on to a list coming from the evo's obsessive little nest.
But people can be reminded that your list is nothing more than a recurring billboard asserting your personal agenda.
We all own dictionaries. Nobody has to sign on to a list coming from the evo's obsessive little nest.
Let me repeat my offer: If you have disagreements with the definitions, this thread linked in the post is dedicated to refining those definitions. Feel free to post your suggested revisions and ping me.
We're learning a bit too much about what sort of thoughts fill your head, Jorge
Remember, Newtons Laws of motion were corrected by Einstein's theory of relativity. The tested theory is the peak of scientific knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.