OT: My government embarassed me again...

[SimonM]

Could you Liberals please just force an election so we can get rid of these yokels?

Then I can get back to just being angry at the government rather than angry and embarassed. :D


This is why. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/17/tech-090317-gary-goodyear-evolution.html)

[David Jamieson]

omg.

I wish these neo-con idiots would crawl back under the rock from whence they came.
I don't mind putting up with their idiotic foot stamping and bleating and listening to their diatribes about how the world should be, but why must we move backwards because they are uncomfortable with the realities of life on earth?

It's like our country is in a holding pattern with the idiot pm we have and his even more idiotic henchmen.

I'm kinda disappointed in my country in a big way these last 5 years or so.
Our politicians are weak willed and weak minded and far to often take a wait and see position until they are forced to be knee jerk reactionaries. Crikey, I just want to get out of here.

[SanHeChuan]

Crikey, I just want to get out of here.

I hear finland is the Shiz. :cool:

[David Jamieson]

I hear finland is the Shiz. :cool:

Too cold and their wrestling style is mighty ghey.

[David43515]

　　　　　I think two things here really bother me. 1) First is the idea that there are only two possible ways life could have developed, evolution or divine intervention. And if you support one you automatically oppose the other. 2) I hate the way that so many people cling to the Darwinian Evolution model just as blindly as they claim religious people do to creationism, but don`t see thier blind devotion as anything similar to religion, or intolerance ,or stubbornly avoiding any facts.

The truth is that there are plenty of well respected scientists out there who believe that the teory of Evolution is seriously flawed and not supported by either the fossil record or new findings.....but they know that questioning the accepted dogma is like sounding a death knell for thier careers.

I can see this guy looking at the question as being religious in nature no matter what he belives and just not wanting to ride out the shirt storm that would follow no matter what answer he gave.

[Violent Designs]

　　　　　I think two things here really bother me. 1) First is the idea that there are only two possible ways life could have developed, evolution or divine intervention. And if you support one you automatically oppose the other. 2) I hate the way that so many people cling to the Darwinian Evolution model just as blindly as they claim religious people do to creationism, but don`t see thier blind devotion as anything similar to religion, or intolerance ,or stubbornly avoiding any facts.

The truth is that there are plenty of well respected scientists out there who believe that the teory of Evolution is seriously flawed and not supported by either the fossil record or new findings.....but they know that questioning the accepted dogma is like sounding a death knell for thier careers.

I can see this guy looking at the question as being religious in nature no matter what he belives and just not wanting to ride out the shirt storm that would follow no matter what answer he gave.

Do you realize. In order for something to be considered a scientific THEORY，it has to have been under extensive research, tests, and scrutiny from opposite viewpoints and has to have SIGNIFICANT data, facts, empirical evidence and hard proof to back it up.

In other word a THEORY is basically something that is tried and tested, has the majority/virtually the scientific community to backing it, because there is too much conclusive evidence, data, to support the THEORY.

Please name those "well respected scientist" that believe THEORY of evolution is flawed and has no conclusive proof.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are some of us who have found a comfortable "middle' between divine creation and evolution.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

In other word a THEORY is basically something that is tried and tested, has the majority/virtually the scientific community to backing it, because there is too much conclusive evidence, data, to support the THEORY.

An unproven theory is just that - a theory, an educated guess.

A proven theory is called a theorem.

Evolution, being a theory, is not conclusively proven. There is, however, much corroborative evidence in the sense that various disciplines - biology, genetics, medicine, archeology, geology, biochemistry, geochemistry and AI research, to name a few - are all using evolutionary theory to successfully discover new phenomena, facts and applications within their respective fields.

Religion may have enjoyed a similar developmental role in the past, but today its uses are limited. I think this is due to the combination of multiple competing religious/atheistic/agnostic views and the rise of the communication age.

Re the Science Minister's comments... Science ministers should help, not hinder, any research that may benefit earth and humanity. I don't think his comments demonstrated a lack of willingness to support evolutionary research, but he certainly didn't give his blessing, which in our current political climate of closed-door prayer meetings and cuts to public arts and media is easily viewed as anti-evolutionary.

[SimonM]

The truth is that there are plenty of well respected scientists out there who believe that the teory of Evolution is seriously flawed and not supported by either the fossil record or new findings.....but they know that questioning the accepted dogma is like sounding a death knell for thier careers.


Here is the thing David:

It's very true that "Darwinian" evolutionary models are flawed. Darwin himself said so!

However what is false is that there is valid scientific debate over whether evolution occurs.

We know evolution happens, it has been observed happening in laboratory environments using organisms with very short lifespans.

However where there is valid scientific debate is over how evolution occurs. That is a matter of continuing enquiry among biological scientists, anthropologists and other interested parties.

Which is why there is a problem with a "science" minister who may be a creationist! His religious beliefs could potentially try to block funding into research into the processes through which evolution happens, potentially limiting our understanding of this well observed phenomenon!

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Here is the thing David:

However what is false is that there is valid scientific debate over whether evolution occurs.


Even the Vatican accepts evolution!

[Drake]

A theory is not an educated guess. Go back, retrain, and come see me again.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

A theory is not an educated guess. Go back, retrain, and come see me again.

"A theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations."

Do I get my Plaid Sash now?

[David Jamieson]

Our appendix is proof of evolution due to adaptation and mutation.

You can still be created, but to toss out the science behind that creation is ridiculous.

I wonder if these creationists appreciate all the bloody flaws that their god gave them such as well, exploding appendixes, rotting teeth, oxygenated free radicals that rust and rot us, mental retardation, psychological problems and so on and so forth.

Relgion is nice but it has no place in governance or education any more than voodoo does.

[sanjuro_ronin]

the⋅o⋅ry
   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Origin:
1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eîn) to view + -ia -y 3

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

[SimonM]

The definition of theory notwithstanding evolution - in broad strokes and not in reference to the processes by which it occurs - is an observed phenomenon. In that way it is much like lightning.

Everybody can SEE lightning. Everybody can SEE the results of lightning.

There are theories that describe HOW lightning happens.

But the fact that there are theories of lightning does not bring into doubt the EXISTENCE of lightning.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The definition of theory notwithstanding evolution - in broad strokes and not in reference to the processes by which it occurs - is an observed phenomenon. In that way it is much like lightning.

Everybody can SEE lightning. Everybody can SEE the results of lightning.

There are theories that describe HOW lightning happens.

But the fact that there are theories of lightning does not bring into doubt the EXISTENCE of lightning.

Correct, like it was mentioned before, even the Vatican has accepted evolution for what it is, a naturally occuring phenemona.
It's the "driving force" of evolution that is up for "debate".

[Xiao3 Meng4]

It's the "driving force" of evolution that is up for "debate".

Come now, we all know the driving force of evolution is Qi. :D

[Drake]

"A theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations."

Do I get my Plaid Sash now?

That and a pocket protector for your gi.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Come now, we all know the driving force of evolution is Qi. :D

Are there no more secrets left in this world !?!?!?!?!
:eek:

[SimonM]

Are there no more secrets left in this world !?!?!?!?!
:eek:


According to Futurama Qi IS the driving force of evolution.

And an evolutionary cold war between the Encyclopods and the Dark Ones has been ongoing ever since the frog-like ancestors of one of the two species ate the snake-like ancestors of the other.

That cold war will only end when the Qi returns to the universe and when a man who was his own grandfather (thus negating his delta brainwave) gets a feminista pendant in his head, granting him the power to read minds. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

According to Futurama Qi IS the driving force of evolution.

And an evolutionary cold war between the Encyclopods and the Dark Ones has been ongoing ever since the frog-like ancestors of one of the two species ate the snake-like ancestors of the other.

That cold war will only end when the Qi returns to the universe and when a man who was his own grandfather (thus negating his delta brainwave) gets a feminista pendant in his head, granting him the power to read minds. ;)

Wow, and to that I can only say:

[SimonM]

All-powerful Atheismo be praised!

[Shaolinlueb]

who cares? what does religious beliefs have to do with running a country? :eek::eek::eek:

[SimonM]

When the prime minister appoints a Chiropractor who is a Christian Fundamentalist who holds anti-scientific opinions (such as a refusal to accept that evolution occurs as it contradicts the time frame laid out in scripture) as a matter of faith.

When that person is then a major voice in decisions over federal funding for scientific pursuits.

I think that is an issue.

Scientific innovation is as important (or more important due to our smaller manufacturing base) to the Canadian economy as it is to the American economy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

When the prime minister appoints a Chiropractor who is a Christian Fundamentalist who holds anti-scientific opinions (such as a refusal to accept that evolution occurs as it contradicts the time frame laid out in scripture) as a matter of faith.

When that person is then a major voice in decisions over federal funding for scientific pursuits.

I think that is an issue.

Scientific innovation is as important (or more important due to our smaller manufacturing base) to the Canadian economy as it is to the American economy.

Bro, government rarely appoints the right people to the right job, you know that.
Heck, the leaders of government tend to be LAWYERS for pete's sake !!
The worse possible candidates to lead ANYONE, much less a country !

[Shaolinlueb]

Heck, the leaders of government tend to be LAWYERS for pete's sake !!
The worse possible candidates to lead ANYONE, much less a country !

been saying this for years. why do you think the budgets are always ef'd up. lawyers don't know how to run stuff.

[SanHeChuan]

A proven theory is called a theorem.

Wrong!


Theorems in mathematics and theories in science are fundamentally different in their epistemology. A scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories.

There is nothing higher for a theory it be promoted to, that's as high as it gets.

The questions should go,

"Do you believe in creationism, or do you understand evolution."

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Wrong!



There is nothing higher for a theory it be promoted to, that's as high as it gets.


(Gives Drake back the Plaid Sash and Pocket Protector)

...Couldn't find a Gi with pockets, anyway. ;)


Thanks for the correction, SHC.

[David43515]

Here is the thing David:

It's very true that "Darwinian" evolutionary models are flawed. Darwin himself said so!

However what is false is that there is valid scientific debate over whether evolution occurs.

We know evolution happens, it has been observed happening in laboratory environments using organisms with very short lifespans.

However where there is valid scientific debate is over how evolution occurs. That is a matter of continuing enquiry among biological scientists, anthropologists and other interested parties.

Which is why there is a problem with a "science" minister who may be a creationist! His religious beliefs could potentially try to block funding into research into the processes through which evolution happens, potentially limiting our understanding of this well observed phenomenon!


Forgive me. I wasn`t at all clear when I chimed in yesterday, and you said it as clearly and sucsinctly as anyone could have hoped for.

There`s no doubt that evolution does take place. The very fact that we are able to breed animals and create new plant hybrids is proof of that. What is up for debate is how it takes place. The idea that thousands of random mutations occuring in reponse to external stimuli combine over time to not just change existing organisms but to create entirely new species can`t be proven yet.

To clarify what I`m talking about, it`s commonly accepted that all dog breeds from the Irish Wolf Hound down to the Teacup Chihuahua are decended from the wolf. There maybe big differences from breed to breed, but they are still primarily just variations of the same basic species. Man has directed the breeding of dogs for centuries and has vastly sped up the different changes that make up the differences in the breeds, making far more and drastic changes than would have probably occurred naturally. But so far as I know, the basic organism has stayed the same for the last few thousand years. Nobody has ever successfully bred a dog with gillss or antenae.

If evolution occurred how it`s usually presented, there should be a clear series of subtle changes reflected in the fossil record. But there isn`t. The fossil record shows sudden abrupt changes. Most biologists therefore have no evidence to support thier claims for slow, gradual evolution. They simply say that thier evidence didn`t fossilize and that we have to accept everything they say on faith while waiting for the evidence to prove they`re right. That seems to rule out search for other possibilities, a direct affront to the scientific meathod. In fact it sounds like the religious zealotry they claim to oppose.

[SimonM]

See I'm personally of the opinion that the majority of evolutionary adaptations fall into three categories:

Random Mutation with Adaptive Benefits
Selective Mutation with Adaptive Benefits (Darwin's natural selection)
and Cross-Breeding (Bacteria apparently do this somehow, I don't know precisely how, ask a bacteriologist, I'm a sociologist with a strong Anthro grounding)


However I do respect that this is something that still falls into the category of debate.

I do, however, have a large issue with Intelligent Design theory which is predicated on the assumption that beauty can not occur randomly.

That is bad logic.

Now as soon as somebody demonstrates experimental results that suggest a non-human intelligence at work manipulating evolution I will certainly give it due consideration.

This has yet to happen.


With regards to gaps in the fossil record there are two things that are widely considered to be responsible for the problem:

1) It's hard to make a fossil.

The conditions necessary for fossilizaiton - particularly fossilization of significant enough completion to result in something regarding a record - were not conditions that occured everywhere or every-when. As a result it is not unsurprising that we are missing bits.

2) Purely random mutation with adaptive benefits - this was BIG NEWS in the scientific community in the early 1990s when I first started getting interested in topics pertaining to evolution. See some oceanographic surveys suggested that occasionally a completely random mutation (ie one not governed through the gradual processes of natural selection) would prove to be enough of an adaptive advantage to allow a new species to spring up in a shockingly short period of time and with almost no intermediaries between that species and it's ancestors. This is now old news.

[Baqualin]

See I'm personally of the opinion that the majority of evolutionary adaptations fall into three categories:

Random Mutation with Adaptive Benefits
Selective Mutation with Adaptive Benefits (Darwin's natural selection)
and Cross-Breeding (Bacteria apparently do this somehow, I don't know precisely how, ask a bacteriologist, I'm a sociologist with a strong Anthro grounding)


However I do respect that this is something that still falls into the category of debate.

I do, however, have a large issue with Intelligent Design theory which is predicated on the assumption that beauty can not occur randomly.

That is bad logic.

Now as soon as somebody demonstrates experimental results that suggest a non-human intelligence at work manipulating evolution I will certainly give it due consideration.

This has yet to happen.


With regards to gaps in the fossil record there are two things that are widely considered to be responsible for the problem:

1) It's hard to make a fossil.

The conditions necessary for fossilizaiton - particularly fossilization of significant enough completion to result in something regarding a record - were not conditions that occured everywhere or every-when. As a result it is not unsurprising that we are missing bits.

2) Purely random mutation with adaptive benefits - this was BIG NEWS in the scientific community in the early 1990s when I first started getting interested in topics pertaining to evolution. See some oceanographic surveys suggested that occasionally a completely random mutation (ie one not governed through the gradual processes of natural selection) would prove to be enough of an adaptive advantage to allow a new species to spring up in a shockingly short period of time and with almost no intermediaries between that species and it's ancestors. This is now old news.

You left out the effects of past mass extinctions .
Also the fact that Geology is a relative new science....we still have a lot to learn.
You can look at the fish species in the rift lakes of Africa and see high rates of natural evolution in real time.
BQ

[SimonM]

All perfectly valid points.