PDA

View Full Version : Horizon on UK BBC2 will be covering Intelligent Design



Sticks
2006-Jan-21, 12:48 PM
The BBC Science programme Horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/index.shtml) will be covering Intelligent design.

BBC2
21:00 - 21:50 (GMT)
Thursday 26 January 2006

paulie jay
2006-Jan-21, 01:20 PM
Good, that mean's I'll be seeing it soon on the ABC :)

Sticks
2006-Jan-26, 06:28 AM
Bump

Just to remind the UK people

I have to go out and attend a committee meeting tonight so I have to hope my VCR does not screw up :cry:

mid
2006-Jan-26, 09:26 AM
So I should have bought that video input card for the PC at the weekend, after all. Oops.

mickal555
2006-Jan-26, 11:14 AM
Good, that mean's I'll be seeing it soon on the ABC :)

Horizen is on ABC?

What time?

captain swoop
2006-Jan-26, 02:16 PM
Link to BBC Horizon page for this show
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/war.shtml

captain swoop
2006-Jan-26, 02:17 PM
Sounds like they have Sir David Attenborough and Dawkins on the show. I wonder which side they are on!

Sticks
2006-Jan-26, 05:19 PM
That meeting I was due to attend has been cancelled, only one person could make it to the pub if need be, so at my suggestion we agreed to give the weeky meeting a rest for this week.

So I can be in tonight :dance:

I expect that there will be some power blackout tonight at 21:00 :shifty: :eek:

kylenano
2006-Jan-26, 06:07 PM
This is on the BBC News site about a survey conducted for the programme: Britons unconvinced on evolution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm)

Over 2000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

* 22% chose creationism
* 17% opted for intelligent design
* 48% selected evolution theory
* and the rest did not know.
It's not a very big sample, but I thought those favouring evolution would be higher. :(

The Saint
2006-Jan-26, 07:15 PM
At least they're not as bad as the US, where 60% actually believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old! Shock! Horror!

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-26, 07:24 PM
At least they're not as bad as the US, where 60% actually believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old! Shock! Horror!

Even if 60% of the US believes in ID or Creationism (which I find a rather unbelievable figure; I'd have to see the polls that made that and verify their authenticity), that doesn't necessarily mean they believe in the "10,000 years old" idea. Many could easily believe that God created evolution. *Shrugs*

Disinfo Agent
2006-Jan-26, 07:25 PM
Where did you that number from, Saint?

paulie jay
2006-Jan-27, 06:23 AM
Horizen is on ABC?

What time?
They sneak them into Four Corners every now and then. Or am I thinking of Panorama?

The Saint
2006-Jan-27, 07:25 AM
88% believe in ID
http://www.blogorithm.com/archives/2005/10/astonishing_88.php

And this claims 50% in "Gallup Polls" in a less than 10,000 year old humanity
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/inteldesign/

I have seen higher figures.

If these are correct, despite the populace not being exposed to any ID, YEC or Creationist education at school or the media whatsoever, but solely to a uniformitarian 16 billion year non-theistic Big Bang education, then if they were, the figures could rise to 95%+!

What dismal figures for the followers of Asimov, Gould, Dawkins etc.

Obvously these are abiding US beliefs which aren't going to go away, independent of Xtianity, Judaism or Islam.

There was a good "Bronx Zoo" episode (with Ed Asner as atheistic Jewish principal Joe Danzig) which had a temporary teacher teaching Creationism to a class of Afro- and Hispano-Americans. After their initial hostility, they became enthusiastic YECs, beating up anyone who didn't believe in a 10,000 year old universe, including the principal! Eventually the police were called, the Creationist expelled, but the agitation persisted.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-27, 09:36 AM
The BBC link showing half the Brits surveyed don't believe in evolution either is quite a surprise. I thought Europe was more modern than that. To think that so many people don't believe in something so basic in science is overwhelming. What is wrong with people? [shakes head in disbelief]

gwiz
2006-Jan-27, 09:58 AM
On the other hand, Darwin was one of the finalists in the recent "Greatest Brit" poll.

I saw the programme, they started with the Dover school board minority members, parents and teachers expressing their concern over ID, then gave the ID proponents a good slice of time to set out their arguments, then showed Ken Miller demolishing them and finally reported on the judgement in the Dover case. They omitted my favourite bit of the judgement, however, where the judge says that, for professed Christians, the majority members of the school board had been doing a lot of lying on oath.

JohnD
2006-Jan-27, 10:22 AM
Seen it, recommend it.
Especially Dawkins', "yapping terriers of ignorance".
Also he (briefly) defends his snub of the IDers, in that he will not debate with them, for the reasons he and Gould suggested.

The heroes of the prog are the two teachers from the school in Devon, USA, who took the ID-supporting school board to court, and won. They are most eloquent speakers, and brave with it.

John

Disinfo Agent
2006-Jan-27, 10:27 AM
88% believe in ID
http://www.blogorithm.com/archives/2005/10/astonishing_88.phpCareful. What that blog entry actually says is that "88% of the US population believes that God had at least some hand in the creation of life". That's not the same thing as ID.


And this claims 50% in "Gallup Polls" in a less than 10,000 year old humanity
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/inteldesign/

I have seen higher figures.I don't see the figure 10,000 anywhere on that page. Could you post a direct link to where you saw it?

Sticks
2006-Jan-27, 10:41 AM
I do find that Richard Dawkins comes across as being arrogant. For those that do not know him, he is like an evangelical atheist.

That said

Sometimes people are their own worst enemy, Irreducable Complexity comes across as the new version of God of the Gaps and gives a hostage of fortune to evolutionists, as was seen with the Flagella example. Had the guy studied it closer he may have spotted the simpler structure and either dropped it or reformulated his argument.

This was a kind of repackaging of creationism, but does classical creationism need ID?

I did like the interview with the guy from the Vatican Observatory, one place where faith and science have managed to get along.

mid
2006-Jan-27, 11:24 AM
The guy from the Vatican Observatory was an absolute star of the show, I thought. He did an excellent job of making it clear that the ID proponents were trying to force a conflict between religion and science where none exists.

As Ken Miller so ably demonstrated, the mistake of trying to turn Faith into Science is that Science can be proved wrong.

The Saint
2006-Jan-27, 09:40 PM
"Yapping Terriers of Ignorance"? Hasn't Dawkins himself been called "Darwin's Rottweiler"?!

That he comes across as an "evangelical atheist" is not surprising since he is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society and vice-president of the British Humanist Association.

His reason for not debating the Creationists is well known.

What reason did he give for refusing to debate the IDers?

If there really is a "God Center" in the brain, no wonder so many instinctively balk at his message, apart from his abrasive style. It's just their evolutionary instinct!

LurchGS
2006-Jan-27, 09:50 PM
my vote is: there's nothing to debate.

You can debate opinions, you can't debate facts

The Saint
2006-Jan-27, 10:04 PM
"Among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know. Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening!" (Dawkins 2004)

A debate would be fun, but I don't think Dawkins'd be able to keep his cool, and the police would literally have to be called, as used to happen when A.P.E. (Association for the Protection of Evolution) members used to gate-crash Creationist debates.

"Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" (Dawkins 2001).

JohnOAS
2006-Jan-28, 05:54 AM
They sneak them into Four Corners every now and then. Or am I thinking of Panorama?

I'd appreciate a heads-up if you see it coming up in the programming guide, and will of course do the same if I do.



I do find that Richard Dawkins comes across as being arrogant. For those that do not know him, he is like an evangelical atheist.

He can seem that way. As far as arrogance is concerned, I guess perception is, subjectively at least, confirmation. I'm not promoting arrogance as a recommended strategy, but considering the number of times Dawkins has debated with or been attacked by (not physcially of course) complete fruit loops in the past, his attitude is somewhat understandable.

In light of the strategies of his "opponents", I believe a little evangelising (not a particularly good word in this context, even taking into consideration the irony) on the part of atheists is more than called for.

Some people, IMH(BC)O, really do have it coming.

The Saint
2006-Jan-28, 06:07 AM
You've got to admire Dawkins guts.

Dawkins isn't afraid to ridicule the abiding core-beliefs of all religions with his acerbic tongue, including Islam, which he had harsh words for after 911.

With the UK's 5 million Muslims, Richard may yet have to watch out for a Salman Rushdie- type fatwa.

Evangelical atheists are pretty near the top of the zealous young Wahabi followers of Abu Hamza's list of "infidels"!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4602054.stm

beskeptical
2006-Jan-28, 08:28 PM
"Among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know. Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening!" (Dawkins 2004)....Apparently he is unaware of the microbial world.

JohnD
2006-Jan-28, 10:01 PM
That he comes across as an "evangelical atheist" is not surprising since he is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society and vice-president of the British Humanist Association.

And Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University, which is a rather more important and apposite appointment. But I think his expertise and personality came first.

If there is one thing that members of the public who support ID don't understand, it's science. He's doing his job rather well, don't you think?

John

Sticks
2006-Feb-03, 01:04 PM
I have re-watched a recording done on DVD by my father of this Horizon, I am going on a church retreat to Kielder Forest this weekend, and I thought I might bring it so they can see what this ID stuff is all about.

I think it is an excellent example of how not to do something.

Luke 9:55 is where Jesus rebuked his disciples for wanting to call fire down on a town that was a bit less than hospitable. The proponents of ID were effectively doing that with their tactics.


Calling a science teacher a liar for teaching evolution, is calling down fire
forcing through a vote and doing something unlawful, "to do something for Him", is calling down fire.


(I could mention a breach of Romans 13 here)

The battle to get creationism into the science class was lost in 1987.

We are called to win hearts and minds

So the solution is clear

Have anything relating to creation mythologies, (and lets bring in the other faiths and cultures to show certain elements in society that we are one human race with nobody deemed as sub human (sorry for slight political rant) ), brought into a humanities class.

That way, no science teacher feels under threat
People know of the theory of evolution, (even if they may come to disagree with it)
Those people from the world of faith get a hearing

I would like to get a herring, if you fillet them, grill them on foil with a light cooking oil, sprinkled with black pepper and herbs de provence, they are quite nice, but I digress

But getting back to my main observation, do you ever wince when people, nominally on your own side, in pursuing your common aims and objectives, use questionable methods, because it appears to get results?

(I may not be able to reply for a few days, as I said I am off to Kielder Forest in Northumberland for the weekend.

The Saint
2006-Feb-03, 02:27 PM
Why is it that Evolution, like Relativity, is so damned counter-intuitive?! That's why the populace, despite 100 years of teaching, still balks at accepting it.

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe" (Wolfgang Smith).

Fram
2006-Feb-03, 02:37 PM
The populace does not balk, although probably some of them do. Evolution is not counterintuitive to me, and apparently not to many othet people. And please stop the quote mining, it is annoying. Replace in your last quote "Darwinism" by ID and "scientists" by "fundamentalists", and it would probably be more correct, but still just as inconsequential for the discussion at hand. Discuss he evidence or the lack thereof, not the quotes supplied by ID and Creationist supporters.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-03, 02:41 PM
"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe" (Wolfgang Smith).

1) Wrong.

2) What someone else says is irrelevant. Why don't YOU show us how evolution has no evidence to it, instead of relying on the opinions of others. You have a claim, back it up, and NOT by continually quoting random people.

mid
2006-Feb-03, 03:23 PM
Why is it that Evolution, like Relativity, is so damned counter-intuitive?!

Personally, I find it incredibly intuitive.

1) Characteristics are inherited from parents.

Well, duh.

2) Some of these characteristics make you more or less likely to survive and reproduce.

Again, simple enough.

3) Over time, seperate populations may diverge so much as to show speciation.

The difficult part, if there is one. But we've seen it at the microscopic level. So intuitive or not I've no problem with it.

The clever stuff that makes this a scientific theory, rather than just a baseless hypothesis, all seems to make sense, but I'm not biologist so I'll leave that to others.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-03, 04:04 PM
"The believe in miracles is intellectual defeatism." -unknown.

Anybody know who said that? :whistle:

The Saint
2006-Feb-03, 04:05 PM
Those 3 points sound tautological!

"I argue that the ‘theory of evolution’ does not make predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empericisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies. The essence of the argument is that these ‘theories’ are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.” (RH Peters).

What IDers say is irrelevant. But what evolutionists say, like Peters, is also irrelevant?!

Wolverine
2006-Feb-03, 05:03 PM
What IDers say is irrelevant. But what evolutionists say, like Peters, is also irrelevant?!

What's irrelevant is your incessant quote-mining. If you wish to properly learn about evolution, do so by consulting scientific resources on the topic and making an effort to increase your understanding of the subject matter. You won't learn a thing from juggling quoted snippets.

The Saint
2006-Feb-03, 05:16 PM
Does Sticks know the current state of play at Emmanuel College, the school in Gateshead next to his Newcastle, that Dawkins had investigated for teaching creationism?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm

The Saint
2006-Feb-03, 06:45 PM
Here the British Creationist take on the BBC Horizon ID documentary
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=42


The last piece is interesting:

"Dawkins claimed in the programme that because organic life displays complexity it is therefore improbable and that the creator must be more complex than creation, and therefore even more improbable than creation. As such Dawkins claimed that God is extremely improbable and likely therefore not to exist. What is wrong with this line of arguing? The first problem for Dawkins is that his own claim about the blind watchmaker of natural selection shows that such a naturalistic creator would be less complex than the creation he claims it can explain. Dawkins argument in fact falsifies evolution because the process of macro-evolution, if it were true, would be less complex than creation. Creation indeed would be improbable if it came about by chance, but this is not what ID asserts. ID and creation scientists make the inference that a designer exists, and that creation is the result of purposeful intent and not a matter of probability. Dawkins argument is only correct insofar as to show that we should be looking for a creator more complex than creation, and not one such as natural selection that is less complex than creation. It may be observed that creation and complexity exist, and that such observations require a creator of greater complexity"

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-03, 07:05 PM
Uh, what does that mean? :eh:

Fram
2006-Feb-03, 07:17 PM
That they still confuse the origin of life with the origin of species, i.e. evolution :wall:

Wolverine
2006-Feb-03, 07:24 PM
The last piece is interesting

Hardly. Just further misrepresentation from a non-scientific source.

The Saint
2006-Feb-03, 07:27 PM
Uh, what does that mean? :eh:

First chivvy up what exacty "falsify" means!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsify

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-03, 07:29 PM
First chivvy up what exacty "falsify" means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsify

Fascinating.

You seem to think that we don't know what it means.

Yet, the majority of posters who take error with your viewpoints have brought up what "falsifiable" means over and over again in other debates.

But what's most fascinating of all is that this shows -- yes, it DOES show -- that you seem to be fully capable of reading and responding to posts. So let me put to you this question:

Why don't you respond to ours? You know, the ones that go on about how evolution is not the "origin of life", but instead the "origin of species"? Until you understand that one small little tidbit, anything else you go on is flawed. Not only is it completely, totally, irrevocably flawed, but also your incapability of digesting the actual facts that matter to the discussion and theory gives great flaws to... well, anything you do.

The Saint
2006-Feb-03, 07:50 PM
Does not the word "evolution" today include chemical evolution ("soup theory")?

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-03, 07:54 PM
Does not the word "evolution" today include chemical evolution ("soup theory")?

Which is a hypothesis, yes. It is a concept that has not been falsified. When a better hypothesis is developed, then it will be replaced.

"God did it" isn't a better hypothesis.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-03, 10:21 PM
Does not the word "evolution" today include chemical evolution ("soup theory")?Most people distinguish between "from soup to first reproducing organism" and "from first reproducing organisms to present day organisms."

Evolution technically does not include initiation. It isn't a meaning assigned to the term.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-03, 11:46 PM
Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

nokton
2006-Feb-04, 12:01 AM
The BBC Science programme Horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/index.shtml) will be covering Intelligent design.

BBC2
21:00 - 21:50 (GMT)
Thursday 26 January 2006
Thanx Sticks, a genuine theory of much scientific merit, Hijacked
into a religious game, I am an agnostic, God give me strength.....
Nokton

SirBlack
2006-Feb-04, 12:36 AM
Those 3 points sound tautological!

Would you like to tell us why in your own words? And perhaps even have a discussion which one might learn from? Or do you just want to keep putting out various quotes from other people as if that proved something?


(Who exactly is RH Peters anyway?)

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-04, 02:08 AM
But getting back to my main observation, do you ever wince when people, nominally on your own side, in pursuing your common aims and objectives, use questionable methods, because it appears to get results?
Yes ...

That's, When I SWITCH Sides ...

When you Can't Stand, your Own Side, Part Of it, May Be, Because you Don't, Even Agree With Them, Anymore!

:think:

The Saint
2006-Feb-04, 09:36 AM
Since IDers and Creationists are not viewed by you as being true scientists, my own views are worth diddly-squat to you, can I do better than to appeal to the authority of a fellow Evolutionists like well known Canadian evolutionist ecologist Prof RH Peters? http://www.int-res.com/ecology-institute/eci-prize/?

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 03:44 PM
Since IDers and Creationists are not viewed by you as being true scientists, my own views are worth diddly-squat to you, can I do better than to appeal to the authority of a fellow Evolutionists like well known Canadian evolutionist ecologist Prof RH Peters? http://www.int-res.com/ecology-institute/eci-prize/?

You don't seem to get it.

We prize the argument itself, not the arguer. You could be an IDer or Creationist all you want; if your argument stinks, we'll call it out on it's stench. If it has merit, it will be viewed.

You're throwing out quotes that don't prove a darn thing. So someone claims that Evolution is bull. I don't care what his history is. If all he does is make a claim, then it means nothing. If he can back it up, then it's interesting.

Still, it is not your job to bring forth the arguments of others. If you have a claim or an argument, then make it. If not, then stop this charade, or it will probably be stopped for you.

The Saint
2006-Feb-04, 04:29 PM
Why is that atheistic evolutionists, whether it's Lonewulf or Dawkins, engage so liberally in anger, epithets and ad hominems?

You very rarely, if ever, see IDers or Creationists use any.

Could it be that atheistic evolutionists feel less bound by decorum and even moral constraints?

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 04:43 PM
Why is that atheistic evolutionists, whether it's Lonewulf or Dawkins, engage so liberally in anger, epithets and ad hominems?

Y'know, not all "evolutionists" are atheists. Just to let you know. Also, where were my ad hominems? I'm just getting frustrated that you seem to assume that throwing out random quotes actually benefits an argument.

Oh, also, epithet is a very interesting word to use in this debate. From Dictionary.com:

ep·i·thet

1.
a. A term used to characterize a person or thing, such as rosy-fingered in rosy-fingered dawn or the Great in Catherine the Great.
b. A term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person, such as The Great Emancipator for Abraham Lincoln.

2. An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase.
3. Biology. A word in the scientific name of an animal or plant following the name of the genus and denoting a species, variety, or other division of the genus, as sativa in Lactuca sativa.

Of course, you meant 2, but 3 does involve evolution. Or rather, it involves seperated genuses (genusi? Genus'?), and the explanation seperation of species is a large part of evolution.



You very rarely, if ever, see IDers or Creationists use any.

Yeah, calling all evolutionists atheists is just a generalization, not necessarily an Ad Hominem. Much better.


Could it be that atheistic evolutionists feel less bound by decorum and even moral constraints?

Not really. I have plenty of morals. I've never done drugs, I don't drink to excess, I help those in need, I donate to charities, I help out my friends, I protect my friends. I believe in the life and spirit of humanity, and I have great faith in the future of humanity (and that is practically the only thing I, myself, have faith in).

Whether or not I worship a god does not effect my morality. Whether or not I believe that evolution has great merit has nothing to do with whether or not I worship a god.

Innuendo, generalization, and ad hominems do not become your argument, Saint.

Gillianren
2006-Feb-04, 07:23 PM
I'm curious, Saint. Do you consider the Pope to be an atheist? Because the Catholic church--and many, many other religious organizations--supports evolution.

Not that it matters. Unless the Vatican has some kind of biology department that I don't know about to match their observatory, their opinion doesn't matter, as there is no science to back it up. This is where "belief" becomes the wrong word for evolution. We don't "believe" in evolution as one believes in creationism. Those who believe in creationism do so solely because a certain book tells them it's so. Those who accept evolution do so because the shear weight of evidence is on evolution's side.

This is also why "Darwinism," that beloved incorrect term only used by those who don't accept the evidence, is also wrong. Darwin had some pretty good information going for him, but so much of the weight of evidence came decades after his death. Darwin didn't have the genetic studies that we do. Darwin didn't have the level of fossil record that we do. Darwin was, in some places, wrong, and we'll all freely admit it. The idea carries on, because every study done adds weight to it. If your list of mostly dead scientists all changed their mind, it wouldn't affect that weight of evidence.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-04, 07:47 PM
Thanx Sticks, a genuine theory of much scientific merit, Hijacked
into a religious game, I am an agnostic, God give me strength.....
NoktonAre you saying the science behind ID which is based on the premise that evolution cannot account for some whole organs and/or certain species transitions like changing an arm to a wing is "of much scientific merit", because it is not. That particular hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited by the evidence.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-04, 07:51 PM
Since IDers and Creationists are not viewed by you as being true scientists, my own views are worth diddly-squat to you, can I do better than to appeal to the authority of a fellow Evolutionists like well known Canadian evolutionist ecologist Prof RH Peters? http://www.int-res.com/ecology-institute/eci-prize/?Yes, you can look for the evidence, the research, or the summaries of the two and provide links so that we may review the material for ourselves.

At least it ought to be obvious citing quotes has not convinced a singe person here.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-04, 07:53 PM
Why is that atheistic evolutionists, whether it's Lonewulf or Dawkins, engage so liberally in anger, epithets and ad hominems?

You very rarely, if ever, see IDers or Creationists use any.

Could it be that atheistic evolutionists feel less bound by decorum and even moral constraints?
That's pretty laughable, Saint.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-04, 07:55 PM
...
Yeah, calling all evolutionists atheists is just a generalization, not necessarily an Ad Hominem. ...Clearly a generalization, but personally I don't find the term atheist to be an insult. :)

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 09:13 PM
Clearly a generalization, but personally I don't find the term atheist to be an insult. :)

Well, yeah, I didn't take it as an insult either. But it still turns into a "God vs. Science" situation, which Evolution is not about.

(I say the following for the "benefit" of Saint, but I doubt it would matter what I said)...

Science is about understanding the universe around us using physical laws and reason. You want to see if something works, you test it. Sure, you know if you drop your car keys, it'll fall -- but at what speed? Does the velocity increase the higher you stand? Is there a mathematical way to describe it? Well, there is... so we develop the science of math, the science of physics, etc.

Scientists have explored the theory of Evolution, have debated it and looked at all the pieces of evidence. In the end, the foundation of Evolution has been strong, and backed up by substantial evidence, not a series of quotes.

At no point does evolution say, "God isn't real". Science can't prove a negative. But it can give an explanation, and the most likely explanation given the evidence. And that's what Evolution is. It isn't about anti-religion, and it does not require faith. It merely requires reason and critical thinking.

ToSeek
2006-Feb-04, 09:34 PM
Why is that atheistic evolutionists, whether it's Lonewulf or Dawkins, engage so liberally in anger, epithets and ad hominems?

You very rarely, if ever, see IDers or Creationists use any.

Could it be that atheistic evolutionists feel less bound by decorum and even moral constraints?

Well, so much for that irony meter: a post complaining about (imaginary, so far as I can tell) ad hominems engaging in ad hominems.

As for Creationists "rarely" engaging in ad hominems or anger, I would invite you to visit just about any of the Talk.Origins Archive feedback pages (http://talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/). Just try to find more than a month or two without an entry where the creators of that web site aren't threatened with burning in hell for all eternity for their sinful views.

Meanwhile, you have consistently failed to engage in the discussion here, instead either quote-mining, name-calling, or dodging the issues rather than actually addressing them. This has got to stop. If it doesn't, then you will be banned.

Wolverine
2006-Feb-04, 09:47 PM
Why is that atheistic evolutionists, whether it's Lonewulf or Dawkins, engage so liberally in anger, epithets and ad hominems?

You very rarely, if ever, see IDers or Creationists use any.

Could it be that atheistic evolutionists feel less bound by decorum and even moral constraints?

The Saint, your behavior on these threads has become dangerously close to trolling. If you wish to pursue evolutionary subject matter, you are strongly advised to discuss pertinent materials rather than constructing feeble strawmen like the above, engaging in quote-mining or fallacious (and irrelevant) appeals to authority.

It has already been pointed out to you (repeatedly) that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, theism, or any religious or non-religious position. You have been provided with a number of references to scientific resources on the subject of evolution, and should make an effort to review their content.

JohnOAS
2006-Feb-05, 01:01 AM
Why is that atheistic evolutionists, whether it's Lonewulf or Dawkins, engage so liberally in anger, epithets and ad hominems?

You very rarely, if ever, see IDers or Creationists use any.:liar:

That's true, if you close your eyes and cover your ears every time an IDer or Creationist is about to express themselves. Edit: Following sentence added to show that I believe that such a statement is false for any group. That's a generalisation that's far from useful, statistically or constructively. No group can truly claim to be free of adherents who get emotional or behave badly from time to time.


Could it be that atheistic evolutionists feel less bound by decorum and even moral constraints?

Edit: I'm going to remove and potentially inciteful references, as per the guidelines.

Could it be? Perhaps, but you really ought to provide some evidence supporting your claim. Remember, correlation is not conclusive evidence of causality.

Decorum is very subjective. Unfortunately, most of us feel some level of personal confilict when our ideas are challenged, even if it is not intended. In forums like this and similar platforms, the people you are most likely to hear from are generally those with relatively high levels of committment to their ideas. This makes for interesting debates but necessitates some conflict, which should remain between the ideas themselves, not the supporters thereof.

I don't see that either the "IDers" or "atheistic evolutionists" have any monopoly on morality, but I'm happy to dicusss any evidence to the contrary. This does not mean quoting examples of behaviour by specific individuals, but rather an illustration of how the the underlying philosophy of the group in question is relevant to the behavioural norms for this group.

Edit: The remaining text has been struck out and edited but left behind for historical reasons, and to show that my edit was for the purpose of making my post more appropriate, not to change the underlying purpose of my argument. It naturally reflects my personal stance, and may not be appropriate. It was not meant to be inciteful, but I understand the moderators stance. I'm happy to delete it competely if this is deemed the appropriate action. Mods (or anyone else for that matter) can post a follow up reply or PM me to that effect and I'll kill the section below entirely.

Which do you think is a better system for developing a set of morals?
1. Taking them from some body of knowledge, written by people thousands of years ago and assuming everything it it is more or less infallble and perfectly applicable to the world and society in which we currently live.
2. Starting out with some common-sense rules that seem to work, based on the wellbeing of the bulk of a particular society, and then observing the results and modifying and finetuning parts(and perhaps discarding some ideas) to improve the performance of the system.

Personally, I'm going with #2. If you go with #1, you're going to have to deal with the fact that there is no real evidence to support the choice of your particular faith based system over the hundreds of others in existence.

I'm not suggesting that system #2 is perfect, and hasn't produced some blunders, but the point is, like the scientific body of knowledge, it improves over time.

You don't need any particular belief system to define morality, in fact, it could well be argued that choosing one's morals based on an arbitrary set of "rules" definded by some unknown persons/entity some unknown period of time go, is, in itself "immoral", or at the very least, irresponsible.

Wolverine
2006-Feb-05, 01:05 AM
As per our forum guidelines (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845) concerning politics and religion, this is definitely not the place for a discussion of religion and/or morality.

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

Please don't go there.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-05, 01:36 AM
Thanks Wolverine, for a PERFECT Segue, Back to My Original Point ...

What Do you Do, When you Absolutely Can't Stand, The Actions of Those People, Who Claim to Be, On your Own Side ...

Personally, That's Precisely When, I Switch Sides, What Does, Everyone Else Here Do?

:think:

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-05, 02:30 AM
I walk out and slam the door. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/boese/a055.gif

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-05, 02:39 AM
I walk out and slam the door. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/boese/a055.gif
Hmmm ...

Good Answer, Even Though, it's your Own Side ...

So, How About, The Rest of you?

:think:

JohnOAS
2006-Feb-05, 02:40 AM
Thanks Wolverine, for a PERFECT Segue, Back to My Original Point ...

What Do you Do, When you Absolutely Can't Stand, The Actions of Those People, Who Claim to Be, On your Own Side ...

Personally, That's Precisely When, I Switch Sides, What Does, Everyone Else Here Do?

:think:

I'll generally try to point out/discuss with those I see as potentially "on my side" my reasons for seeing their actions as counter-productive. Assuming that my "side" has some appreciation for logic and rational argument, this should result in some sort of improvement.

Of course, the person(s) perfoming the inappropriate actions may not be contactable by myself, in which case, it may be a case of trying to understand and/or rationalise their stance, or simply pointing out that their behaviour is not representative of the rest of us from the "same side".

Switching sides for myself (and I suspect, many others) would often be both impossible and inappropriate based solely on the actions of a few misguided or misinformed individuals. For example, inappropriate statements/actoins by proponents of the current and generally accepted description of the motion of astronomical bodies aren't going to cause me to switch to a belief in the geocentric description of the universe.

The Saint
2006-Feb-05, 05:57 AM
Hoyle, Einstein, Mach and others could be quoted on the geocentric description, showing that according to Relativity you don't have to change your belief, just to accept that it's a primus inter pares "a first among equals", but quoting and appeals to authority are viewed with disfavour.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-05, 06:23 AM
.....just try to find more than a month or two without an entry where the creators of that web site aren't threatened with burning in hell for all eternity for their sinful views....That's hilarious. :D

Fram
2006-Feb-05, 07:11 PM
Hoyle, Einstein, Mach and others could be quoted on the geocentric description, showing that according to Relativity you don't have to change your belief, just to accept that it's a primus inter pares "a first among equals", but quoting and appeals to authority are viewed with disfavour.

Do you believe in Relativity? All of it? Or do you just use it when it suits you?

Sticks
2006-Feb-05, 07:25 PM
Hoyle, Einstein, Mach and others could be quoted on the geocentric description, showing that according to Relativity you don't have to change your belief, just to accept that it's a primus inter pares "a first among equals", but quoting and appeals to authority are viewed with disfavour.

As one who has taken the side questioning evolution, I have to say they way you are going on is not helping the cause. Earlier you did make an oblique ad honimen against Atheistic Evolutionists. As for creationists not using them, perhaps it might be worth remembering when Thomas Henry Huxley debated the Bishop William Wilberforce. The bishop thought he would be clever and employed a personal attack, and well, I will let the others recount what the bishop said and how it was turned against him by Huxley.

Ad Honimens have been used by all sides, and they do not add anything.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-05, 07:35 PM
Zaph and Sticks, what part of evolution do you question, or am I reading your posts incorrectly?

Sticks
2006-Feb-05, 09:37 PM
Zaph and Sticks, what part of evolution do you question, or am I reading your posts incorrectly?

Is it permissable for me to answer that question this in this thread? It was originally set up to flag a programme that was shown here in the UK

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-05, 11:44 PM
Zaph and Sticks, what part of evolution do you question, or am I reading your posts incorrectly?
NONE, for me ...

But, that Does, Get Back to My Point ...

I Used to Support, a Few, Right Wing Causes, that Are Beyond The Scope of this Board, But Switched, When I Couldn't Stand The Actions, of The People, Who Were Alledgedly, on My Side!

Wolverine
2006-Feb-06, 12:26 AM
Is it permissable for me to answer that question this in this thread? It was originally set up to flag a programme that was shown here in the UK

Feel free to do so.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-06, 02:57 AM
NONE, for me ...

But, that Does, Get Back to My Point ...

I Used to Support, a Few, Right Wing Causes, that Are Beyond The Scope of this Board, But Switched, When I Couldn't Stand The Actions, of The People, Who Were Alledgedly, on My Side!

Actions have nothing to do with ideas or ideals. If you were for peace, and I was for peace, and I kill someone, would you be against peace? It makes no sense.

"Person A says B. Person A does action C. Therefore, B is wrongful."

That argument doesn't work or me.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-06, 03:11 AM
Actions have nothing to do with ideas or ideals. If you were for peace, and I was for peace, and I kill someone, would you be against peace? It makes no sense.

"Person A says B. Person A does action C. Therefore, B is wrongful."

That argument doesn't work or me.
But, What if EVERYONE, Who Was for Peace, Advocated Killing, to Do it ...

Wouldn't their Argument, Start to Look, a Little Less, Pallattable ...

Furthermore, Simply Finding a Side's Actions Reprehensible, Without Seeing Much Reason for Apologetics, is a Sign of Luke-Warm, Attraction to The Idea, in Itself!

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-06, 03:15 AM
Read my sig. :eh:

And there is always an other outfit with a similar agenda.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-06, 04:00 AM
Read my sig. :eh:

And there is always an other outfit with a similar agenda.
Sometimes, I Wonder About that ...

99%, of The Dirty Tricks, Are Coming, from YECs ...

Makes you Wonder, About The RIIGHTNESS Of their Ideas, If they Have to Lie, About them!

Sticks
2006-Feb-06, 07:41 AM
Zaph and Sticks, what part of evolution do you question, or am I reading your posts incorrectly?

One bit which we have discussed elsewhere, which some dispute is part of evolution and a separate issue, is abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", getting that which is non-living to give rise to that which is living. However I will leave that to one side at this time.

The core part of evolution IIRC is that an organism is able to change over time and give rise to other forms, which may be superior and more able to adapt than the previous forms.

I will leave to one side the issue of the fossile record concerning transitional forms

In order for a change to occur, the mechanism put forward is genetic mutation. This is the problem. A mutation by definition is an error in copying the DNA, and of all of the mutations we have observed in higher animals they are only the bad ones, leading to a number of syndroms, like Downs Syndrome that affects my younger sister's first child.

I say higher animals to distinguish from bacteria, as many cite antibiotic resistance as proof of evolution in action, although this is actually caused by plasmids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmids)

Getting back to mutations, any mutation will make the animal different, and in nature, red in tooth and claw, such animals are selected against, e.g albino animals. Mutations seem to be a dead end and from parts of the literature I have seen, (as quotes are frowned upon I will refrain from doing so), mutations according to evolutionist experts do not seem to provide a mechanism for the changes to proceed, even over the amounts of geological time that is widley accepted for the age of the Earth.

So what did I miss?

Fram
2006-Feb-06, 08:52 AM
One bit which we have discussed elsewhere, which some dispute is part of evolution and a separate issue, is abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", getting that which is non-living to give rise to that which is living. However I will leave that to one side at this time.

The core part of evolution IIRC is that an organism is able to change over time and give rise to other forms, which may be superior and more able to adapt than the previous forms.

I will leave to one side the issue of the fossile record concerning transitional forms

In order for a change to occur, the mechanism put forward is genetic mutation. This is the problem. A mutation by definition is an error in copying the DNA, and of all of the mutations we have observed in higher animals they are only the bad ones, leading to a number of syndroms, like Downs Syndrome that affects my younger sister's first child.

I say higher animals to distinguish from bacteria, as many cite antibiotic resistance as proof of evolution in action, although this is actually caused by plasmids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmids)

Getting back to mutations, any mutation will make the animal different, and in nature, red in tooth and claw, such animals are selected against, e.g albino animals. Mutations seem to be a dead end and from parts of the literature I have seen, (as quotes are frowned upon I will refrain from doing so), mutations according to evolutionist experts do not seem to provide a mechanism for the changes to proceed, even over the amounts of geological time that is widley accepted for the age of the Earth.

So what did I miss?

Quotes are frowned upon if they are a) used as argument by authority, and b) aren't accompanied by some explanation, i.e. what does the poster mean by it, why does he give the quote.
Giving a quote on a scientific issue (e.g. the lack of beneficial mutations) by a relevant scientist is in my view perfectly in order. If you have e.g. a quote from a Nature study that says that from the 500 mutations observed in the last 20 years, none produced offspring, that would be extremely relevant and no one would frown upon it (I hope).
This page (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html) should list some observed beneficial surviving mutations in humans. I don't have the background to judge their value. More info, as usual, can be found at talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html).

mid
2006-Feb-06, 05:32 PM
Those 3 points sound tautological!

It's a fairly A therefore B therefore C argument, I'll give you. However, I was making things as obvious as possible, since in your previous post you were claiming that the same argument was somehow counter-intuitive.

As for your Peters quote, it is correct to say that the basic idea as Darwin put it forward did not make much in the way of prediction as a scientific theory. We've since had 100 years of additional work in the area, however, which have quite comprehensively strengthened the theory, and in DNA shown a physical mechanism behind it.

I know that Creationists love to throw the "Darwinism" tag around, but part of the problem with doing that is that they tend to ignore any development in the science more recent than the Victorian era.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-06, 11:42 PM
88% believe in ID
http://www.blogorithm.com/archives/2005/10/astonishing_88.php

And this claims 50% in "Gallup Polls" in a less than 10,000 year old humanity
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/inteldesign/

I have seen higher figures.In addition to the fact that you were not able to present a source for those figures (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=665925&postcount=18), according to this site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) the actual numbers are:


Nov. 1997, Gallup

Creationist view: 44%
Theistic evolution: 39%
Naturalistic Evolution: 10%

i.e., 49% accept evolution

nokton
2006-Feb-07, 07:56 PM
Why is it that Evolution, like Relativity, is so damned counter-intuitive?! That's why the populace, despite 100 years of teaching, still balks at accepting it.

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe" (Wolfgang Smith).
Saint, good to meet you.
Intuition, is the ability to understand something immediately, without the
need for conscious reasoning.
Reading the above posts, ( and many papers in the past related ).
Feel the stumbling block here is perceived doctrine.
It seems to me, there are two camps. One with Darwin, who I find much
issue with, in reason and logic, and another with an uncompomising
belief in a Deity that controls all things, and cannot be subject to reason
and logic. Is there not a middle ground here? Conceive of Man, a thousand
years hence, exploring the stars, having the ability and knowledge to
genetically alter any lifeform encountered, to express an interest in it's
development, without contact. Would we be God? No, just a passing
advanced race, sowing the seeds of intelligent life.
Nokton.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-07, 09:19 PM
One bit which we have discussed elsewhere, which some dispute is part of evolution and a separate issue, is abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", getting that which is non-living to give rise to that which is living. However I will leave that to one side at this time.

The core part of evolution IIRC is that an organism is able to change over time and give rise to other forms, which may be superior and more able to adapt than the previous forms.

I will leave to one side the issue of the fossile record concerning transitional forms

In order for a change to occur, the mechanism put forward is genetic mutation. This is the problem. A mutation by definition is an error in copying the DNA, and of all of the mutations we have observed in higher animals they are only the bad ones, leading to a number of syndroms, like Downs Syndrome that affects my younger sister's first child.

I say higher animals to distinguish from bacteria, as many cite antibiotic resistance as proof of evolution in action, although this is actually caused by plasmids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmids)

Getting back to mutations, any mutation will make the animal different, and in nature, red in tooth and claw, such animals are selected against, e.g albino animals. Mutations seem to be a dead end and from parts of the literature I have seen, (as quotes are frowned upon I will refrain from doing so), mutations according to evolutionist experts do not seem to provide a mechanism for the changes to proceed, even over the amounts of geological time that is widley accepted for the age of the Earth.

So what did I miss?
You missed the latest research in genetic science, from the questions you have here.

A number of things occur which overcome the potential for a vast number of bad mistakes before a good one occurs (to put it in oversimplified terms).

First, redundancy. Our gene plan has a lot of tolerance for error without disrupting the system. While some errors, like that which causes Down's syndrome have immediate effects, a whole bunch of "errors" exist in our DNA that are over ridden by redundant nature of two chromosomes with two genes for everything except those on the X and Y chromosomes.

Second, built in variation. A lot of variation exists already in our DNA. When conditions favor those variations, they are more likely to be selected. A frequently cited example is the CCR5 deletion on the gene that controls the development of the cell wall proteins on the white blood cells that the HIV uses to gain entry into the cell. Whether you have this deletion error or not, your white blood cells work equally well. The mutation occurred long ago in Europe and a small number of the population have the mutation. It turns out the CCR5 deletion makes it harder for the HIV to enter the cell and begin an infection. So given time, and an ongoing HIV pandemic, you can expect the mutation to be selected, thus evolving a genetic resistance to HIV. But the point is the mutation existed before HIV reached the population with the mutation. We have a lot of variation already, which with different selection pressures will emerge.

Third, segmented function. Our genes are each little pieces of instructions for little pieces of the whole. A single mutation in the gene that controls finger development in the fetus, for example, can give rise to webbed fingers, or 6 digits. How do you get such a large structural change with a single mutation? Easy, the genes that control finger development are separate for each structure in the fingers. There would be several genes involved in determining where the fingers go, how the skin develops, how the muscles develop, how many fingers develop and so on. A mutation of one of the genes doesn't necessarily result in a non-functioning deformity.

And interestingly, a lot of organisms have a lot of the same genes but with very different results. The same gene that tells the eye to develop in the fetus in a rabbit will tell the eye to develop in a fruit fly. That gene from a rabbit has been inserted into a fruit fly with the gene removed, and normal fruit fly eyes developed.

And finally, genes consist of a series of pairs of molecules that code for proteins in what seems to be groups of 3. So AAG would be a code, GGA would be a code and so on. There are sequences that tell the gene where the code starts and ends. So mutations can do funny things. They can reset the line of code so that all the subsequent codes are changed. They can turn a gene on or off at a different place. (The CCR5 does that and renders a segment of the code silent.) They can turn a whole gene on or off. This means single mutations can have very large effects. Or they may have no effect but now exist and can be added to by second and third mutations before any effect is seen. Since we have redundancy, built in variation, and segmented function, evolution has a chance to succeed, to be drastic at times, and over time, to result in life forms adapted to every niche on the planet.

Sticks
2006-Feb-07, 11:34 PM
One of the other articles did mention that most mutations are neutral, so this redundancy would account for that then ? (not making any point just clarifying)

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-08, 04:31 AM
One of the other articles did mention that most mutations are neutral, so this redundancy would account for that then ? (not making any point just clarifying)
Yes; Think About it, This Way ...

Let's Say, In a Population, of 100 Animals, In Any Given Generation, 5% Receive Harmful Mutations and Die Out, 90% Receive Neutral Mutations and Remain at Equilibrium, And Finally, 5% Receive Beneficial Mutations and Double Up their Number In The Next Generation:

First Generation: 5 Die, 90 Maintain Equilibrium, 5 Have The Beneficial Mutation, and 95 Animals Total ...

Also, Just to Make it Simpler, Let's Assume The Beneficial Mutation, Is Also Self-Correcting, Not Because I Wanna Stack The Deck, But Mostly Because, I Wanna Keep The Numbers Simpler:

Second Generation (Rounding Up, Both Ends): 5 Die, 80 Maintain Equilibrium, 15 Have The Beneficial Mutation, and 95 Animals Total ...

Third Generation: 4 Die, 72 Maintain Equilibrium, 34 Have The Beneficial Mutation, and 106 Animals Total ...

Notice, Total Numbers are Finally Going Up, After an Initial Dip, and The Neutral Mutations are Disappearing, Let's See If this Continues:

Forth Generation (Rounding Up, Both Ends, Again): 4 Die, 66 Maintain Equilibrium, 72 Have The Beneficial Mutation, and 138 Animals Total ...

Fifth Generation (Rounding Down, This Time): 3 Die, 60 Maintain Equilibrium, 147 Have The Beneficial Mutation, and 207 Animals Total ...

Take Note, Not Only Has The Total Number of Animals, More than Doubled, but The Number With The Beneficial Mutation, Is More than Twice as High, as The Number With The Neutral Mutation, But, Let's See, One More Generation:

Sixth Generation: 3 Die, 54 Maintain Equilibrium, 297 Have The Beneficial Mutation, and 351 Animals Total ...

Thus, in 6 Generation's Time, The Number of Animals Has More than Tripled, And Almost ALL of those, Have a Mutation, Better Suited to their Environment!

Bobunf
2006-Feb-08, 05:37 AM
It really distresses me to see people like Dawkins be so offensive in attacks on creationism, intelligent design and religion in general.

It distresses me even more to see people lie, who profess to be serious, committed and active Christians, in order to defend or advance their beliefs. The Dover school board case (at least according to the judge and news accounts) was a recent and truly egregious example, but I’ve personally experiened this instances at other times and even about other issues.

It seems it me that such actions, on Dawkins part, or on the part of fundamentalist Christians, exposes a deep insecurity in their beliefs. They must suffer a true crisis of faith if they feel insults or lying are called for.

Bob

beskeptical
2006-Feb-08, 09:54 AM
One of the other articles did mention that most mutations are neutral, so this redundancy would account for that then ? (not making any point just clarifying)
In addition to what Zaph said, consider also the numbers of base pairs in the human genome, some 3 billion making up, I think some 30,000 (memory is unsure, too lazy to check) genes plus a lot of additional material in the DNA strands. Then consider selection pressures: environment, mate selection and so on. How many of those genes are actually going to be selected and how many (the remainder) are going to get a free pass?

Your genes could be passed on to more offspring merely because you were born into a Catholic family and adopted the same beliefs that don't allow birth control. Or, your genes might not be passed on because you were born in a drought stricken country, too poor to have medical services, and you and all your siblings die of a vaccine preventable childhood disease like measles.

It's possible that the selection pressures are really only acting on a very small fraction of your DNA, and the rest is along for the ride. It's this mechanism that also allows a lot of genetic variation to exist and propagate.

JohnOAS
2006-Feb-08, 09:56 AM
It really distresses me to see people like Dawkins be so offensive in attacks on creationism, intelligent design and religion in general.

snip..

It seems it me that such actions, on Dawkins part, or on the part of fundamentalist Christians, exposes a deep insecurity in their beliefs. They must suffer a true crisis of faith if they feel insults or lying are called for.


The insecurity may be the reason some of the time. However, I believe that most of the time it is inspired by other reasons, namely:
1. Frustration - both sides are quite capable of exasperating the other. Strong feelings from either camp make it very difficult to understand/accept the other's point of view.
2. Arrogance - Again, neither "side" is exempt from this behaviour.
3. Passionate intent - some people believe that being brash, loud, or even offensive will be effective, even if only for it's shock value. This is sometimes true, but often has the opposite of the desired effect.

Believer or atheist, they are just people , and therefore some of them are going to argue/behave badly. It is also worth taking into consideration that with the range of beliefs and sensitivities out there, it's nigh on impossible to make any meaningful statement and not offend someone.

Finally, if you feel strongly for either position, the stakes are high enough that it's worth the risk of offending someone if it saves them from either eternal damnation or a life full of worthless worship and exploitation, take your pick.

Sticks
2006-Feb-08, 11:19 AM
Yes; Think About it, This Way ...

Let's Say, In a Population, of 100 Animals, In Any Given Generation, 5% Receive Harmful Mutations and Die Out, 90% Receive Neutral Mutations and Remain at Equilibrium, And Finally, 5% Receive Beneficial Mutations and Double Up their Number In The Next Generation:

[SNIP]

Thus, in 6 Generation's Time, The Number of Animals Has More than Tripled, And Almost ALL of those, Have a Mutation, Better Suited to their Environment!

Sorry to be a pain here

I was trying to do a spreadsheet of this so I could get a graph and see what it looks like. I thought I could guess from the description the algorithm so I could encode it

My headings were

Generations (Ge)
Organisms (O)
Bad Mutations (B)
Neutal Mutations (N)
Good Mutations (Gd)


I thought it was


Generations: Ge == Ge+1
Bad Mutations: B == 0.05*O
Neutral Mutations: N == 0.9*O
Good Mutations: Gd == 0.05*O
Organisms: O == O - B + 2Gd


Needless to say I did not manage to duplicate the figures.

What is the calculation I should have been using to get this to work.

AstroSmurf
2006-Feb-08, 01:05 PM
You need to keep track of the Good mutations and the Neutral mutations populations separately. I included neoteny mutation of the positive trait too - can be omitted if you want a simpler model. To start with, N = O, Gd = 0:

Generations: Ge = Ge+1
Bad Mutation pop: B = 0.05 * N (die out, so no inclusion of previous B)
Neutral Mutation pop: N = N - 0.05*N (Good) - 0.05*N (Bad) + 0.05*Gd (Neoteny)
Good Mutation pop: Gd = 2 * (Gd - Gd*0.05 (Neoteny) + 0.05*N (Good))
Organisms is the sum of N and Gd, but not expressable as a simple formula from the earlier O since it depends on the distribution of Gd in the population


Hope this gives you enough to run the simulation.

Sticks
2006-Feb-08, 01:45 PM
Hope this gives you enough to run the simulation.

For the moment I have opted to omit neoteny mutations

Assuming I followed your algorithm correctly I got this (See attached image)

For reference

B4 has the equation =D4+E4
C4 has the equation =0.05*D4
D4 has the equation =D3-0.05*D3-0.05*D3
E4 has the equation =2*(E3+0.05*D3)

Did I get this right?

gwiz
2006-Feb-08, 02:26 PM
Did I get this right?

Can't be quite right if you're getting fractions of an organism.

Sticks
2006-Feb-08, 02:52 PM
Can't be quite right if you're getting fractions of an organism.

Well some organisms can be quite fractious :shifty:

Sticks
2006-Feb-08, 03:27 PM
Can't be quite right if you're getting fractions of an organism.

OK

Here I have formatted the cells to show integers

Question remains, did I get this model correct?

nokton
2006-Feb-08, 07:03 PM
It really distresses me to see people like Dawkins be so offensive in attacks on creationism, intelligent design and religion in general.

It distresses me even more to see people lie, who profess to be serious, committed and active Christians, in order to defend or advance their beliefs. The Dover school board case (at least according to the judge and news accounts) was a recent and truly egregious example, but I’ve personally experiened this instances at other times and even about other issues.

It seems it me that such actions, on Dawkins part, or on the part of fundamentalist Christians, exposes a deep insecurity in their beliefs. They must suffer a true crisis of faith if they feel insults or lying are called for.

Bob,
Bob, agree your concept and evaluation of what obtains in the question of
ID, and how it is viewed, a fundamental concept is required here, and a serious question posed. Is the domain of science, one of reason and logic?
Or tainted by opinion set in belief, or the absence of it? Feel both are wrong.
ID has much merit, so I believe, but then I only believe without preconceived concepts. I just evaluate current knowledge and facts, and
draw conclusions based upon same, then relate that to my life experience
and much acquired knowledge. Darwin just scratched the surface, much more
we have to learn. To think we understand is total ignorance.
Bob, think you got it right.
Would like to discuss with you further.
Nokton.

ToSeek
2006-Feb-08, 07:13 PM
Why is that atheistic evolutionists, whether it's Lonewulf or Dawkins, engage so liberally in anger, epithets and ad hominems?

You very rarely, if ever, see IDers or Creationists use any.

Could it be that atheistic evolutionists feel less bound by decorum and even moral constraints?

Go to this thread (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=41db757d561effff;act=ST;f=9;t=1) for a list of quotes where ID proponents (and not just random creationists but the leaders of the ID movement) compare evolutionists to Nazis or communists.

(Sorry to bring up an old topic, but I'm still annoyed about this.)

Bobunf
2006-Feb-08, 07:53 PM
From the point of view of teaching biology, it seems to me it really doesn’t matter whether the Theory of Evolution or Intelligent Design is “true.”

Just as when teaching plane geometry, it really doesn’t matter whether or not Euclid’s postulates are true. Today we think we know that the Fifth Postulate doesn’t describe how the universe really works—what with curved space and all. But we go ahead and have students spend great effort over the period of a year working with the “flawed theory” from which they derive great benefit.

Well, maybe schools have given up teaching plane geometry these days—too hard, I guess. Kids also used to be taught Latin, not because it was the correct way to speak anywhere in the world they were likely to encounter, but because of other benefits.

“OH, Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me” is a useful mnemonic. The stars don’t really care whether or not the girl kisses the astronomer, but who could ever remember OBAFGKM?

Which is more useful for students of biology to learn? It seems to me that the problem with Intelligent Design is that it is too easy. What’s the organizing principle behind millions of animal species from thousands of trilobites to hundreds of types of humans? Why do humans have differing amounts of melanin in their skins depending on how far their ancestors lived from the equator? Why do dogs produce their own vitamin C and people don’t?

Intelligent design doesn’t really have much to offer in this department. But the Theory of Evolution organizes it all, just like Euclid’s Elements or “OH, Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me.” The Theory of Evolution is a superior tool for remembering and organizing things, and for sharpening the mind.

Intelligent design is like a textbook that just gives you all the dates, and no intertwining story to make it all interesting and memorable.

So, it behooves the educational establishment to work with the superior text, and not get hung about whatever the exact truth might, or might not, be.

Bob

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-08, 08:00 PM
So, Bobunf: The jist of your post seems to be, "Don't worry about the facts, just about the sensationalism!"

Yeah... I don't agree.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-08, 09:40 PM
Just as when teaching plane geometry, it really doesn’t matter whether or not Euclid’s postulates are true. Today we think we know that the Fifth Postulate doesn’t describe how the universe really works—what with curved space and all. But we go ahead and have students spend great effort over the period of a year working with the “flawed theory” from which they derive great benefit.Actually, if I'm not mistaken, we do not know that Euclid's Fifth Postulate doesn’t describe how the universe really works. Yep. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Shape_of_the_universe)
It seems that the 3-dimensional geometry of space is still an open question. What we do know is that 4-dimensional spacetime is curved (from Einstein's general relativity).
But, even if the Fifth Postulate does not describe the physical world, it is still the basis of lots of important stuff you probably don't even dream of, in mathematics. Plus, it's a useful approximation to other geometries, under certain circumstances.

I'll let others comment on the rest of your post.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-08, 09:45 PM
Science should be, quite frankly, about uncovering truth, not sensationalism. Teaching science should be about teaching "truth" (or rather, the core processes to find said truths, and what truths were found by others). But science recognize that what we regard as "truths" today might be discovered to not be "truths" tomorrow -- but this isn't about sensationalism, but merely about falsificationalism.

Though I still wouldn't say that Sociology is "useless", like so many seem to.

Sticks
2006-Feb-08, 09:59 PM
Science should be, quite frankly, about uncovering truth, not sensationalism.

But what, for arguments sake, if that truth is the presence of a divine creator?

But I digress

Was my atempt at modeling mutations correct according to the described algorithm?

nokton
2006-Feb-08, 10:12 PM
Take you on one point Lonewulf, Science about uncovering the truth.
But learned this. A man convinced against his will, is a man of the same
opinion still. Would challenge a point you make Lone, science recognises
nothing, our understanding of science says much about man. But so little
we understand what we pretend.
Nokton

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-09, 12:04 AM
But what, for arguments sake, if that truth is the presence of a divine creator?

That is an issue that is not falsifiable. Thus it is an issue that is not provable. Thus it cannot be determined, through scientific method, to be a "Truth".

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-09, 03:19 AM
OK

Here I have formatted the cells to show integers

Question remains, did I get this model correct?

ALMOST ...

However, I Only Doubled Up, For The Next Generation, So, Try this Instead:

E4 has the equation = 2*E3+0.05*D3

Also, to Completely Match My Numbers, Let The Two Ends Round Up, If The Decimal is 0.5 or Greater; If you Think this Is Fun, Next, I'll Show you, The Ring Species Version!!!

Sticks
2006-Feb-09, 06:52 AM
OK have amended that field, as you can see, from the spread sheet.

How do you do the rounding in Excell?

All I can seem to do is format cells and change the number of decimal places on the number.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-09, 07:54 AM
And I ask you, Sticks, have I given you enough information about genetic mechanisms to at least convince you the answers are indeed there whether you know all the specifics or not?

Sticks
2006-Feb-09, 08:31 AM
And I ask you, Sticks, have I given you enough information about genetic mechanisms to at least convince you the answers are indeed there whether you know all the specifics or not?

Thankyou for passing this on, it was some time since I last looked at this on the genetic front, especially as micro-biology was not my scientific discipline, that tended to be more towards the physics / computing field when I was processing through the university system.

What I want to do now is see if I can get the model that ZaphodBeeblebrox put up working, so I can run it over several more generations.

Some time ago I come across something called "The special theory of evolution" or Micro evolution, that only allowed for variation with in species. I believe I have mentioned it before. Maybe this is the mechanism for that process.

One thought does occur, how long must this process go, i.e generations before you can observe a new species of organism. One which if it tried to mate with a member of the old organism, could not produce fertile offspring (i.e Donkey & Horse gives rise to a mule). Is a new species arrived at when the Neutral population reaches zero?

How long must one go before you get a new genus, like canus and feline.

I realise that some use antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence of evolution at work, although it is argued that this is due to the presence of plasmids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmids), but is the antibiotic resistant bacterium considered a brand new species or just another variant of the same spiecies, in much the same way we have the different races of homo sapiens.

Has a new genus ever been observed emerging?

gwiz
2006-Feb-09, 08:47 AM
I don't think it's a case of how long, but of a species getting separated geographically and the two halves evolving under different conditions until they are far enough apart to be separate species. A large geographic spread without the separation can lead to ring species, where an individual can breed with some of the species but not others.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-09, 10:23 AM
Thankyou for passing this on, it was some time since I last looked at this on the genetic front, especially as micro-biology was not my scientific discipline, that tended to be more towards the physics / computing field when I was processing through the university system.

What I want to do now is see if I can get the model that ZaphodBeeblebrox put up working, so I can run it over several more generations.I think his model was more of an illustrative example than an actual model based on research.


Some time ago I come across something called "The special theory of evolution" or Micro evolution, that only allowed for variation with in species. I believe I have mentioned it before. Maybe this is the mechanism for that process.Trust me, that hypothesis has been debunked. People saw evidence of evolution, but had previously adopted the belief evolution theory was wrong so they came up with the explanation you could get a poodle from a wolf but not a lion and a wolf from a distant ancestor. It's bunk.


One thought does occur, how long must this process go, i.e generations before you can observe a new species of organism. One which if it tried to mate with a member of the old organism, could not produce fertile offspring (i.e Donkey & Horse gives rise to a mule). Is a new species arrived at when the Neutral population reaches zero? As gwis explains, new species emerge when animal groups become isolated from the rest of the group. Evolution of mammals is on a very slow time scale. In humans, over 40-60,000 years we evolved different skin color and facial features but we are genetically all the same race still, and those differences are really negligible. It took 3.5 billion years or so to get from the first organism to the animals we have today.


How long must one go before you get a new genus, like canus and feline. You could look it up.


I realise that some use antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence of evolution at work, although it is argued that this is due to the presence of plasmids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmids), but is the antibiotic resistant bacterium considered a brand new species or just another variant of the same spiecies, in much the same way we have the different races of homo sapiens.You have this a bit mixed up. Microorganisms evolve via mutations, and gene exchange such as with the plasmids. It isn't either, it's both. They generally remain the same species. But over time, new species emerge as well. HIV emerged about 1,000 or so years ago. So we are talking about very long periods of time.


Has a new genus ever been observed emerging?Try this web site. (http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html) We have many new species. The best examples besides domesticated animals are crop plants. Most of the plants you eat evolved from wild plants that look nothing like them. Humans can speed up the process considerably. Otherwise, you'd have to wait 50,000 years to see a new species but that certainly doesn't discount the theory.

In other words, if you need to see the off spring of a lion eventually evolve into something else before you believe the theory of evolution you are waiting for evidence you obviously won't see in your lifetime. That's silly since there is overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that is right in front of you now.

I guess I don't get what your objection is to macroevolution. Why on Earth would you be able to breed a poodle but think you couldn't continue to breed that animal so that in 40,000 years you had a different species? What's so different about any 4 legged animal you couldn't continue the process of evolution and get from one species to another? I think that is much harder to believe. What would stop you from making that animal different after each generation? Nothing. So if you get more and more different with each generation, eventually, you get different enough. Why wouldn't you?

The Saint
2006-Feb-09, 10:51 AM
Some say Creationism is not falsifiable. Others say Evolution also isn't. Others say they are. If either (or both) aren't falsifiable, how can one say the evidence shows one or the other of them as being false?

Is Intelligent Design falsifiable?



Bertrand Russell, the doyen of atheist philosophers, died in 1970, stated:

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

Was he a "true" atheist?

It'd be interesting to hear his take on the current debate.

Even more interesting would be to hear Darwin's!

I suspect they'd both do a "Muggeridge volte face" and become propagandists against Evolution (discounting anything they may have "seen" on the other side of the grave!).

'These Brit Redcoats always muck things up'! (Colonel Andrew Jackson)

gwiz
2006-Feb-09, 11:14 AM
Evolution is certainly falsifiable, you only need to find a feature that couldn't have evolved or a species that can't be fitted on the "family tree" of life. That's why IDers get so excited about "irreducible complexity", because if true such a feature could not have evolved. I don't see any way to falsify ID/creationism, as you can explain absolutely anything by saying the designer/God wanted it that way, so that's the way it is.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-09, 11:33 AM
Still doing the quote mining I see, Saint.

Van Rijn
2006-Feb-09, 11:34 AM
Some say Creationism is not falsifiable. Others say Evolution also isn't. Others say they are. If either (or both) aren't falsifiable, how can one say the evidence shows one or the other of them as being false?

Is Intelligent Design falsifiable?


That's a question you can answer: What would you consider to be falsification for ID? Also, please provide positive evidence for ID. That is, not another anti-evolution quotation or statement, but actual positive, scientific evidence for ID.

With evolution, there is a vast library of evidence in many fields that supports the case. What would falsify evolution? Evidence that DNA didn't exist, didn't allow mutation, that there weren't molecular similarities between species that match what we would expect from evolution, that there weren't vast quantities of fossil evidence that fit with the other evidence, that there weren't examples of recent evolutionary events, and so on and so forth. In fact, what we keep finding is an ever growing quantity of evidence that supports evolution.

Please note however, that a falsification for evolution would not automatically support ID. It isn't an either/or proposition. If you want to support ID scientifically, you need to show positive evidence for ID.



Bertrand Russell, the doyen of atheist philosophers


Ok, I'm going to just stop you there. I've seen you throw the word "atheist" into most of your posts on the subject of evolution and I'm tired of it. It isn't appropriate for a discussion on science. I don't discuss atheistic astronomy, atheistic physics, atheistic chemistry, or atheistic biology.

If you have a question, ask it. But please stop with the quote mining and the gratuitous use of the word "atheist."

The Saint
2006-Feb-09, 12:31 PM
So Paley's "Natural Theology" ("The Watchmaker") is not considered a work of science. And Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" is? Or are they both philosophies?

Russell's quote is accomodatable to Creationism. But can Evolution accomodate it?

Fram
2006-Feb-09, 12:42 PM
Some say Creationism is not falsifiable. Others say Evolution also isn't. Others say they are. If either (or both) aren't falsifiable, how can one say the evidence shows one or the other of them as being false?

Is Intelligent Design falsifiable?



Bertrand Russell, the doyen of atheist philosophers, died in 1970, stated:

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

Was he a "true" atheist?

It'd be interesting to hear his take on the current debate.

Even more interesting would be to hear Darwin's!

I suspect they'd both do a "Muggeridge volte face" and become propagandists against Evolution (discounting anything they may have "seen" on the other side of the grave!).

'These Brit Redcoats always muck things up'! (Colonel Andrew Jackson)

Hey, look what Russell said (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/analmd10.txt) directly after that quote you gave:

I am not suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable, but uninteresting.

First, this quote has nothing to do with Evolution versus ID.
Second, he thought that the idea of the Universe "created as is" was uninteresting.
Third, taking dead people that were clearly against your ideas and supposing that they would now change their mind is perhaps the lamest form of argument from authority possible.
Fourth, as has been said over and over again, stop dragging "atheism" into the discussion, it is of no relevance and against the board rules.
Fifth, isn't it time that you stop quote mining (or using other peoples quote mines, as you apparently do) and start giving some evidence for ID, or at least some evidence against Evolution.
Sixth, perhaps you could try to be a part of an ongoing discussion instead of just throwing out posts that are vaguely related to the overall topic but have nothing to do with the actual discussion.

Wolverine
2006-Feb-09, 12:43 PM
Some say Creationism is not falsifiable.

Creationism (http://skepdic.com/creation.html) is not falsifiable. It's at best an argument from incredulity.


Others say Evolution also isn't.

They'd be wrong (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html).


If either (or both) aren't falsifiable, how can one say the evidence shows one or the other of them as being false?

False dilemma. If you would take the time and effort to actually consult rather than ignore references (such as TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)) provided to you by other participants in these discussions, you would perhaps be able to understand why your arguments thus far have consisted of logical fallacies.


Is Intelligent Design falsifiable?

No. It too is an argument from incredulity (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/47366?&print=yes). ID offers no valid mechanism, nor does it make testable predictions. Neither creationism nor ID offer an iota of legitimate scientific content.


Bertrand Russell, the doyen of atheist philosophers, died in 1970, stated:

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

Was he a "true" atheist?

With the above, you've crossed the line into trolling this forum. You have previously received warnings from ToSeek (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=673322#post673322) and myself (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=673332#post673332) in this regard.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that appeals to authority and the associated quote-mining are not logically valid (nor welcome behavior here), and that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religious or non-religious positions. Failure to comply with the warnings issued by the forum staff, including this subsequent caveat issued (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=674298#post674298) has earned you a 72-hour account suspension. If after that time you return and engage in this same variety of behavior, your posting privileges here will be revoked.

N C More
2006-Feb-09, 12:44 PM
Evolution (or any scientific theory) is not required to accomodate philosophy.

Fram
2006-Feb-09, 01:07 PM
So Paley's "Natural Theology" ("The Watchmaker") is not considered a work of science. And Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" is? Or are they both philosophies?

Russell's quote is accomodatable to Creationism. But can Evolution accomodate it?

The second part of your post I have answered in my previous post. I'll just add that I don't think that Creationism supposes the Earth is only five minutes old... Evolution has no problem with what Russell said.

AS to the first part of your post: what is the "So" referring to? You start about two books and decide what the first one is considered or not, without giving any reason why we or anyone would think so, and without saying what you think.

From Paley's work (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=HTML&rgn=TEI.2&byte=53049319):

It is only by the display of contrivance, that the existence, the agency, the wisdom of the Deity, could be testified to his rational creatures. This is the scale by which we ascend to all the knowledge of our Creator which we possess, so far as it depends upon the phænomena, or the works of nature. Take away this, and you take away from us every subject of observation, and ground of reasoning; I mean as our rational faculties are formed at present. Whatever is done, God could have done without the intervention of instruments or means: but it is in the construction of instruments, in the choice and adaptation of means, that a creative intelligence is seen. It is this which constitutes the order and beauty of the universe. God, therefore, has been pleased to prescribe limits to his own power, and to work his end within those limits.
This is not science but philosophy. He starts from scientific grounds (the knowledge of the time, which is of course before Evolution was known, and certainly before genetics and so on), but reaches his conclusions in a philosophical way. He may have seemed correct at the time, but a better theory has come along, which wipes away his objections, like this one:

But valves could not be so formed. Action and pressure are all against them. The blood, in its proper course, has no tendency to produce such things; and, in its improper or reflected current, has a tendency to prevent their production. Whilst we see, therefore, the use and necessity of this machinery, we can look to no other account of its origin or formation than the intending mind of a Creator.

We now have another account of its origin and formation (incomplete in the details, but sound in general), so the need for a miracle solution is gone. It can still be true, but it has no value, as all it says is: "everything may look like it happened through Evolution, but this is false, as it was Creation (or ID, same difference)". Now this learns us nothing, gives us no means to achieve or predict anything, gives no logical explanation, no order, no reason why exactly this reality has happened and not another. Evolution does all that (to a degree of course), and genetics. It gives us the how, the what, the when, it gives us understanding. Creation and ID give us nothing, explain nothing, they just dismiss the question. This isn't science, this is anti-science.

mid
2006-Feb-09, 02:04 PM
No. It too is an argument from incredulity (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/47366?&print=yes). ID offers no valid mechanism, nor does it make testable predictions. Neither creationism nor ID offer an iota of legitimate scientific content.

One minor quibble: As a whole the general idea of ID is indeed unfalsifiable. However, the proponents (particularly Behe) put forward evidence to back their claims (or more specifically to disprove evolution) in the form of specific instances of biological features they find incredulous. Those claims can be (and are) shown to be false.

Sticks
2006-Feb-09, 02:22 PM
I think his model was more of an illustrative example than an actual model based on research.

:doh:
If I got his model working properly, would it be possible to plug in some real mutation rates from research and get an accurate model?



Trust me, that hypothesis has been debunked. People saw evidence of evolution, but had previously adopted the belief evolution theory was wrong so they came up with the explanation you could get a poodle from a wolf but not a lion and a wolf from a distant ancestor. It's bunk.

So there is no distinction between the special and the general theories of evolution. I assumed the Special Theory of Evolution applied to just variation with in a species and allowed for the various breeding programmes of plants, breeds of domestic livestock and other domestic animals. In 1987, when I first heard about it, it was described as "Things do change with in limits. Phylogenetic boundaries are respected, not violated"

However even with this variation, using the example of the dog world, the fact that you can get cross breeds between say a labradour and a German Shepherd, indicates that although there is variation, they are still the same species, because any offspring from them will also be able to breed. The dog remains a dog.


As gwis explains, new species emerge when animal groups become isolated from the rest of the group.

So this is why Darwin saw finches with different types of beak on the Galapogus Islands? If they could get finches from the different islands together, would they be able to breed? If so they, in this narrow example, would be the same species. The Finch is still a finch.

It could be said though as sea levels rose, and animals were cut off in their isolated islands, say, (or what ever process that lead to isolation of species), you may have had a mix, but only certain animals and plants could adapt to the environment they found themselves in, and so the others die out. Plus you coud throw in variation and so by natural selection, we get the wonderful variety of flora and fauna we see today in different geographical locations.


Evolution of mammals is on a very slow time scale.
Although it can be accelerated by human intervention, whis is an obvious truism I can not think I mention it. Sorry.



In humans, over 40-60,000 years we evolved different skin color and facial features but we are genetically all the same race still, and those differences are really negligible.
Many years ago when I was a child, before I had even heard of Creation versus Evolution, I remember one medical professional saying that it only took a few generations for people, originally from another part of the world to develop the melanine requirement of the land in which they were living. Since we have had people who's ethic origins were from Africa since the first Elizabethan times, I suspect 1) I have mis-remembered what he said, 2) he had a different meaning of the word few 3) He was talking a load of rubbish.

Any hue at this seminar in 1987 I went to, they did discuss how you could get variation in a short time, and they said the argument held for either "adam and Eve" or Mr & Mrs Austrolopithicus. The guy used a simplified grid dipicting a small mix of recessive and dominant genes, IIRC using the first 4 letters of the alphabet with captals for the dominant genes and lower case for the recessives. It seemed to make sense at the times. Later when I tried to show it to someone else, they said the precise example was more akin to garden peas. :eh:



You could look it up.

Any pointers on where ? (Sorry if this comes across as being rude, I did not know how to ask with out appearing so)



You have this a bit mixed up. Microorganisms evolve via mutations, and gene exchange such as with the plasmids. It isn't either, it's both.
:doh:

Like I said earlier, opperating out of usual scientific discipline here :sad:


They generally remain the same species.
The whatsit is still a whatsit (Variation?)


But over time, new species emerge as well. HIV emerged about 1,000 or so years ago. So we are talking about very long periods of time.
Side track here, are viruses now considered to be "alive" (nothing to do with creation or evolution here, it was just that I had heard there was a debate as to whether they were a true living organism.)



Try this web site. (http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html)


Good site!



We have many new species. The best examples besides domesticated animals are crop plants. Most of the plants you eat evolved from wild plants that look nothing like them. Humans can speed up the process considerably. Otherwise, you'd have to wait 50,000 years to see a new species but that certainly doesn't discount the theory.


But can these new breeds and crops all exist with out human intervention in the wild? (e.g the seedless grape) the Bulldog can rarely give birth without the requirement for a cesarian section (verified by my line manager who is expert at breeding dogs)




there is overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that is right in front of you now.


What we have are different annimals and different fossils, sort of like just the tips of the branches. The problem is the issue of the transitionals, or lack of them. There is a quote to this effect by the late Dr Colin Patterson and Dr Stephen J Gould is supposed to have highlighted these problems (Unless requested I will spare you the details) Both eminant workers in the field and convinced believers in evolution. (I do not know if they were atheists or not, it matters not as that would be totally irrelevant)



I guess I don't get what your objection is to macroevolution. Why on Earth would you be able to breed a poodle but think you couldn't continue to breed that animal so that in 40,000 years you had a different species?

In our accelerated breeding programmes, I am not aware that we create new species, just variants, highlighted by the fact that these breeds can cross breed and get fertile young. It seems in the artifical breeding schemes, there is only so far we can go.

captain swoop
2006-Feb-09, 02:33 PM
In our accelerated breeding programmes, I am not aware that we create new species, just variants, highlighted by the fact that these breeds can cross breed and get fertile young. It seems in the artifical breeding schemes, there is only so far we can go.


OK come back in 40,000 years.

Sticks
2006-Feb-09, 03:24 PM
OK come back in 40,000 years.

What I was getting at, is that evolution, by relying on mutations as part of the mechanism may have random mutations, which may make it take a long time, and only over eons will it drift to the required goal.

With a breeding programme, there is human intelligence and selective breeding which can speed things up.

I am not aware of a new species being created by such speeded up programmes, only variations on a species. If a brand new species of animal or plant has been created by intensive artificial breeding, please let me know. From my limited studies on this, it seems that there is only so much that can be done with selective breeding programmes, which does not look good for a process which by definition is less controlled, except maybe by environmental conditions.

Fram
2006-Feb-09, 03:53 PM
Less controlled, but on a much larger scale (time, space, numbers). We're talking millions of years here...

Bobunf
2006-Feb-09, 04:11 PM
So, Bobunf: The jist of your post seems to be, "Don't worry about the facts, just about the sensationalism!"

Yeah... I don't agree.

How on Earth did you get that? My post doesn't use the word sensationalism, sensation, etc. even once.

My point was that it is more useful to teach biology using the Theory of Evolution rather than Intelligent Design because as Fram put it, Intelligent Design “learns us nothing, gives us no means to achieve or predict anything, gives no logical explanation, no order, no reason why exactly this reality has happened and not another. Evolution does all that (to a degree of course), and genetics. It gives us the how, the what, the when, it gives us understanding. Creation and ID give us nothing, explain nothing, they just dismiss the question.”

It would still make more sense to teach biology using the Theory of Evolution even if Intelligent Design were true. Even if God came down and said, “I want to put an end to all this bickering. I did create everything in one instant 5,000 years ago, and put all those fossils and stuff in there just to fool you.”

How can anybody even try to make sense of the incredible complexity of life without some organizing principle like the Theory of Evolution? If God did correct us with respect to the “truth of the theory,” the Theory of Evolution would become more of a mnemonic like “OH Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me,” but orders of magnitude more useful, and still the appropriate approach to teaching biology.

Yes, the Theory of Evolution should be used in teaching biology (at least until something better comes along), because it’s science and Intelligent Design is not. But, I think, even more importantly, because you learn a heck of a lot more using the Theory of Evolution, than by just saying, “It’s that way because that’s the way God made it.” Or, even simpler, “It’s that way, because it’s that way.”

This argument is not in support of sensationalism, but in support of human understanding of the biological world.

Bob

Wolverine
2006-Feb-09, 04:31 PM
Sticks: how thoroughly have you read through scientific (rather than creationist/apologetics) sources on the subject of evolution?

captain swoop
2006-Feb-09, 04:39 PM
Selective breeding can only work with what is already there, no new mutations, no further changes.

Sticks
2006-Feb-09, 04:55 PM
Sticks: how thoroughly have you read through scientific (rather than creationist/apologetics) sources on the subject of evolution?

I try and catch the various documentaries on the TV and I do visit the specific links that are provided

I have and have read Dr Colin Patterson's book, Evolution, and Dr C Johanson's book, Lucy the beginnings of Humankind. (although it was a while since I read them)

Apart from that the other books in my library were from what could be classed as apologetics sources.

I think I can see where you are going and perhaps I do need to get something a little more upto date.

Is there a book that you could recommend?. I know there is talk origins, but a book can be a lot easier to read than a screen, and less tiring on the eyes. I can not guarntee I can afford it, as money is tighter here than one would like, but I could see what deals are around either locally or on amazon.

Bobunf
2006-Feb-09, 05:51 PM
I have and have read Dr Colin Patterson's book, Evolution, and Dr C Johanson's book, Lucy the beginnings of Humankind.

The guy's name is Donald Johanson.

Great books on the subject of human origins have been written by Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Incidentally, a very excellent museum.

These books are available. as of today, on Amazon, used, at the indicated prices plus shipping--usually about $3.50.

"Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness," a superbly written book. $4.30.

"The Fossil Trail : How We Know What We Think We Know About Human Evolution." $2.93.

"The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human."
$1.39."

Bob

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-09, 06:01 PM
Try your local public library.
If it's any good, they must have dozens of books on evolution.


Selective breeding can only work with what is already there, no new mutations, no further changes.
True, but sometimes the results are just mindboggling.
Just compare the auroch with a modern turbo cow,
which produce 20,000+ litres of milk per year, and is
(by many) considered to be still the same species.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-09, 06:11 PM
Selective breeding can only work with what is already there, no new mutations, no further changes.Why no new mutations in selective breeding?

Sticks
2006-Feb-09, 07:04 PM
The guy's name is Donald Johanson.

"Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness," a superbly written book. $4.30.


This one is on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192862146/), so I will need to go and see if it available at my local bookshops. I have had to get my credit cards down to zero balance for a while, plus I like to avoid paying P&P is at all possible.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-09, 07:21 PM
Selective breeding can only work with what is already there, no new mutations, no further changes.[drumroll]
I give you green pigs (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10818583/).


All you need are natural mutations and natural selection pressures and ENOUGH TIME, and you get plenty of "further changes".

Wolverine
2006-Feb-09, 07:21 PM
I think I can see where you are going and perhaps I do need to get something a little more upto date.

Is there a book that you could recommend?

It would be most wise to do precisely that. This (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393060160/qid=1139512645/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_0_1/202-3695869-8901432) is in my "to-read" stack, I've heard it's excellent.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-09, 07:25 PM
I saw a university science lecture the other day providing examples of all the types of changes in genetically modified foods in plants modified by humans over the last 10,000 years through selective breeding of plants for better food production, including getting genes to mix between very different plant species.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-09, 07:55 PM
If I got his model working properly, would it be possible to plug in some real mutation rates from research and get an accurate model?I don't know about that model but one could certainly make a model. Why don't you search the net for a more precise version?


So there is no distinction between the special and the general theories of evolution.It is also referred to as micro and macro evolution. Genetic analysis clearly shows there is no such distinction. It is nonsense, pure and simple.


However even with this variation, using the example of the dog world, the fact that you can get cross breeds between say a labradour and a German Shepherd, indicates that although there is variation, they are still the same species, because any offspring from them will also be able to breed. The dog remains a dog.As I said, the scientific evidence has shown this hypothesis to be false. Without question. Time for you to quit questioning it and take the time to learn about it instead.


So this is why Darwin saw finches with different types of beak on the Galapogus Islands? If they could get finches from the different islands together, would they be able to breed? If so they, in this narrow example, would be the same species. The Finch is still a finch. Who cares? That wouldn't disprove macro evolution nor prove only micro evolution occurs. Genetic science has resolved the question. With absolute certainty!!!!


Many years ago when I was a child, before I had even heard of Creation versus Evolution, I remember one medical professional saying that it only took a few generations for people, originally from another part of the world to develop the melanine requirement of the land in which they were living. .... He was talking a load of rubbish.The answer is #3. I don't know what he was basing that conclusion on but it is wrong. Research in human migration routes out of Africa, done by following the DNA trail has shown that skin lightened over thousands of years as people migrated north, and darkened again over thousands of years as they migrated south again, and skin color change isn't any more different as far as race is concerned than blonds and brunettes are different races.

If it only took a few generations then caucasions who migrated to So. Africa and Australia ought to have dark skin by now.


Any pointers on where ? (Sorry if this comes across as being rude, I did not know how to ask with out appearing so)Trial and error on a search engine will get you almost anything you want.


Side track here, are viruses now considered to be "alive" (nothing to do with creation or evolution here, it was just that I had heard there was a debate as to whether they were a true living organism.)Just as the difference between planets and moons will likely always be debatable, so will this question.


But can these new breeds and crops all exist with out human intervention in the wild? (e.g the seedless grape) the Bulldog can rarely give birth without the requirement for a cesarean section (verified by my line manager who is expert at breeding dogs)Ever see what corn used to look like before humans came along? Of course new breeds can exist in the wild. Just because they all don't is a silly argument.


The problem is the issue of the transitionals, or lack of them. There are transitions everywhere, not just in the fossil record, but living as well. And the genomes indicate how transitions progressed, through natural mutation and selection pressures.


In our accelerated breeding programmes, I am not aware that we create new species, just variants, highlighted by the fact that these breeds can cross breed and get fertile young. It seems in the artifical breeding schemes, there is only so far we can go.Yah, because you live 100 years. What did you expect to see if it takes 10,000 or more? However, in 10,000 years we have indeed seen human modification of plants that have resulted in new species.

Turnip and Its Hybrid Offspring (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/plantanswers/publications/vegetabletravelers/turnip.html)

Gillianren
2006-Feb-10, 05:08 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but corn--maize, to non-Americans, I understand--can definitely be considered a different species than the native Mexican grass from which it was initially bred. I don't know how long that breeding took, obviously--I doubt anyone really does--but it can't, logically, have been that long, given how long there've been humans in Mexico.

Sticks
2006-Feb-10, 03:10 PM
This one is on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192862146/), so I will need to go and see if it available at my local bookshops. I have had to get my credit cards down to zero balance for a while, plus I like to avoid paying P&P is at all possible.

I visited two branches of Waterstones in Newcastle today, and they did not have it and it would take 10 days if I ordered it. After work I hope to trek across to Dillons at the Haymarket end.

Here in the UK it costs £9.99 (quite steep compared to the US)

Amazon is selling it for £6.59 (Still a lot more on the US), but you have to add £2.75 p&p adding that in gives £9.34 (a massive saving of 65p - I could retire to the Bahamas on that!!! :mad: )

As I also have a moritorium on my credit cards, buying online is severely curtailed :sad:

If I can get it at Dillons, I will

Incidentally I noticed Behe's book on sale in Waterstones. I did not find the price out, but was irritated they had his book and not Ian Tatchall's :mad:


I thought I would let you know to show I am trying to do some independant investigation.

When I do get it, I will have to get through my current book, The Science of Harry Potter, a book looking into all the Harry Potter magic and discussing how close modern science is to duplicating it. It is written by the guy who wrote "How do Reindeer fly, the science of Christmas"

nokton
2006-Feb-10, 07:31 PM
Evolution (or any scientific theory) is not required to accomodate philosophy..
You speak well, value your input.
I feel belief betrays science in here. Belief is an attitude of mind.
Science is about demonstrable facts that can be proven.
Religion or philosophy is an error to the fact, it is conjecture at best,
at worst the antithesis of reason and logic.
Nokton.

Sticks
2006-Feb-10, 08:00 PM
If I can get it at Dillons, I will



Dillons was a bust :(

Looks like Amazon

Sticks
2006-Feb-10, 08:18 PM
"Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness," a superbly written book. $4.30.


I have now ordered this book from Amazon using my debit card, just to my credit cards at zero balance.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-11, 12:19 AM
What I was getting at, is that evolution, by relying on mutations as part of the mechanism may have random mutations, which may make it take a long time, and only over eons will it drift to the required goal.

With a breeding programme, there is human intelligence and selective breeding which can speed things up.

I am not aware of a new species being created by such speeded up programmes, only variations on a species. If a brand new species of animal or plant has been created by intensive artificial breeding, please let me know. From my limited studies on this, it seems that there is only so much that can be done with selective breeding programmes, which does not look good for a process which by definition is less controlled, except maybe by environmental conditions.
Looks Like The Time For, The Ring Species Algorithm ...

It Works Just Like, The Other One, Except, Instead of 5% Dying Out, they Will Acquire a Second, Mutually Exclusive, Beneficial Mutation:

First Generation: 5 Have Mutation A, 90 Maintain Equilibrium, 5 Have Mutation B, and 100 Animals Total ...

Second Generation (Rounding Up, Both Ends): 15 Have Mutation A, 80 Maintain Equilibrium, 15 Have Mutation B, and 110 Animals Total ...

Third Generation: 34 Have Mutation A, 72 Maintain Equilibrium, 34 Have The Mutation B, and 140 Animals Total ...

Notice, Nearly Half of The Animals, Have One of The Two, Beneficial Mutations, Watch as they Begin, to Pull Away from The Other One (This Was Where, I Made a Subtraction Error, Last Time, All Calculations Have Thus, Been Re-Done) ...

Forth Generation (Rounding Up, Both Ends, Again): 72 Have Mutation A, 64 Maintain Equilibrium, 72 Have Mutation B, and 208 Animals Total ...

Fifth Generation (Rounding Down, This Time): 147 Have Mutation A, 58 Maintain Equilibrium, 147 Have Mutation B, and 352 Animals Total ...

Sixth Generation (Rounding Up, as Corrected): 297 Have Mutation A, 52 Maintain Equilibrium, 297 Have Mutation B, and 646 Animals Total ...

Now, Let's Throw a Little Monkey Wrench, Into the Gears; Imagine The Climate Changes, So Badly in Fact, That The Parent Species, Dies Out Completely, and The Daughter Species, Can ONLY Maintain Equilibrium, Under The New Conditions:

Seventh Generation: 297 Have Mutation A, 297 Have Mutation B, and 594 Animals Total ...

Thus, in 7 Generation's Time, The Number of Animals, Has Increased Almost 6-Fold, Plus The Conditions are Ripe, for More Mutations to Further The Distance, Between The Two New Species, Until Finally, they Will Have Changed Too Much, to Successfully Inter-Breed!

Sticks
2006-Feb-11, 06:18 AM
Here is time to throw in the Tigon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon)

This bit was kind of against normal expectation


Male tigons are sterile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile) while the females are generally fertile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile). In India, a tigon named Rudhrani, born in 1971, was mated to an Asiatic lion called Debabrata and produced 7 "li-tigons" in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes - a li-tigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 800lb/363 kg, stood 52 inches/1.32 metres at the shoulder and 11.5ft/3.5 metres total length.

Now the Tiger and the Lion are two different species but are of the same family Felidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae)

If you can get a hybrid with in a family, has it been done between two genus. (Apart from the experiments of the genetic engineers producing green pigs (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10818583/) which are artificial transgenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic)), say a cat and a dog?

The Ring Species gives an idea how two species might arrise, but when do we arrive at a new genus?

Maybe that book might have it in when it arrives :think:

01101001
2006-Feb-11, 06:32 AM
If you can get a hybrid with in a family, has it been done between two genus.
Fatshedera (http://www.floridata.com/ref/F/fats_liz.cfm) -- an intergeneric cross between Fatsia japonica and Hedera helix.

Sticks
2006-Feb-11, 07:13 AM
Fatshedera (http://www.floridata.com/ref/F/fats_liz.cfm) -- an intergeneric cross between Fatsia japonica and Hedera helix.

Thank you for that

Obviously with in the plant kingdom there is more scope for hybrids than the animal kingdom. Any idea why that might be so? (Not a creation evolution point, just curious)

On this particular example the website does say


Inter-generic hybrids are very rare, and almost never occur in nature.

But then I am not aware that evolution makes use of hybridisation as a mechanism anyhue

But then there is this bit


Propagation: Propagated by cuttings of semi-ripe stem tips in summer.

With this narrow example, it seems that human intervention is needed to propergate it

Maybe I should have got a decent horticulture book as well :rolleyes: :cool:

beskeptical
2006-Feb-11, 08:29 AM
Thank you for that

Obviously with in the plant kingdom there is more scope for hybrids than the animal kingdom. Any idea why that might be so? (Not a creation evolution point, just curious)Because the state of our technology in the past allowed us to graft plants and seeds. Now that we have improved genetic technology, we are merging the animal genes of different species. But we couldn't do it until recently.

Nature changes species through evolution. That involves natural selection pressures and mutation. But there are millions of examples of gene swapping in different microorganism species. A strain of plague bacteria was found a few years ago that had developed resistance to 5 antibiotics through acquiring genes from unrelated bacteria.

Viruses can also leave genetic material in animals including humans that becomes a permanent part of the DNA. I suppose there may be cases where the change affected sperm or ova and was then passed on to future generations. I don't know of any cases but imagine they are out there.

But as far as complete hybrids, we just have those odd creatures like mules and Ligers which are mostly the result of human intervention.

Richard of Chelmsford
2006-Feb-11, 09:58 PM
I saw the 'Horizon' programmme, plus the recent Dawkins 'Root of all Evil' similar programmes.

I was in hospital last week with little to do except watch telly. On Sunday there was this 'Sunday' type programme on and they introduced the concept of 'Intelligent Design' as if it was something new and respectable which we wouldn't have really heard of, but which merited inclusion with scientific theories. Of course there was some I.D pundit on without any sign of any Dawkinesque character to tell them what a lot of boneheads they were being.

I wondered about writing in to the show but (sigh!) what the heck's the point with people like that?

JohnOAS
2006-Feb-11, 11:45 PM
Now the Tiger and the Lion are two different species but are of the same family Felidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae)

If you can get a hybrid with in a family, has it been done between two genus. (Apart from the experiments of the genetic engineers producing green pigs (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10818583/) which are artificial transgenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic)), say a cat and a dog?
The Ring Species gives an idea how two species might arrise, but when do we arrive at a new genus?

Remember, the concepts of genus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus) and even species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) are man-made. The distinctions are arbitrary, and designed to make classification and related matters possible, and, to some of us at least, reasonably common sense. It would be possible for creatures of entirely different genus to have quite similar physical structure and be vastly different genetically.

It's a not unlike people getting all flustered over the existence of "transitional forms". In reality every creature is a transitional form, you just have to be able to see far enough into the future to know what the current transitional forms (including ourselves) are "transforming" into.

beskeptical
2006-Feb-12, 06:31 AM
.. It would be possible for creatures of entirely different genus to have quite similar physical structure and be vastly different genetically. ...More commonly, creatures have very similar genetics and vastly different physical characteristics.

Sticks
2006-Feb-13, 05:05 PM
The book has finally arrived and is now on my to read list, unless I try and split reading time between it and my current one, The Science of Harry Potter by Roger Highfield.

In order to get through, I may have to curtail my time on this forum :shifty:

gwiz
2006-Feb-13, 05:22 PM
my current one, The Science of Harry Potter by Roger Highfield.
There was a review of his earlier work "Can Reindeers Fly?" which consisted of "No".

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-13, 05:25 PM
The Science of Harry Potter by Roger Highfield.
I hope this is intended as recreational reading. :)

Sticks
2006-Feb-13, 05:32 PM
I hope this is intended as recreational reading. :)


It is the only Harry Potter book I am reading :naughty:

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-13, 05:46 PM
The book has finally arrived and is now on my to read list, unless I try and split reading time between it and my current one, The Science of Harry Potter by Roger Highfield.

In order to get through, I may have to curtail my time on this forum :shifty:
Sticks, No Offense Intended ...

But, you REALLY, Need to Learn, How to Smile ...

It Would So Help, to Brighten Up your Face!

beskeptical
2006-Feb-13, 06:46 PM
It is the only Harry Potter book I am reading :naughty:
Oh man, read the series. It's a wonderful story, though the last book sort of went nowhere.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-13, 07:02 PM
Oh man, read the series. It's a wonderful story, though the last book sort of went nowhere.

If you're into that kind of stuff, at least.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-13, 07:07 PM
Oh man, read the series. It's a wonderful story, though the last book sort of went nowhere.
I Wouldn't Say NOWHERE ...

Just, Nowhere The Fans Wanted it, to Go ...

Darn you, Tom Marvolo Riddle!

:mad:

Sticks
2006-Feb-13, 10:21 PM
But, you REALLY, Need to Learn, How to Smile ...


It tends to be difficult for me. Not sure if it is to do with my Asperger Syndrome I have. I know that you are not allowed to smile on passport photographs.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-13, 11:38 PM
Well, at least you don't look mad, as I often do in passport pictures.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-13, 11:47 PM
It tends to be difficult for me. Not sure if it is to do with my Asperger Syndrome I have. I know that you are not allowed to smile on passport photographs.
It Probably Is ...

I Used to Know a Guy, with Aspurger's ...

He DID Smile, Just Always, at The Wrong Times!

:think:

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-13, 11:53 PM
It tends to be difficult for me. Not sure if it is to do with my Asperger Syndrome I have. I know that you are not allowed to smile on passport photographs.

??? Not allowed to smile on passport photos? You mean in England, right?

Sleepy
2006-Feb-14, 01:12 AM
??? Not allowed to smile on passport photos? You mean in England, right?Yes

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-14, 01:18 AM
Yes

Okay, but... I mean, why? I don't get the idea behind it.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Feb-14, 01:20 AM
Okay, but... I mean, why? I don't get the idea behind it.
People, Are UNHAPPY at Customs ...

Still Sticks, that's No Reason, Not to Smile ...

Remember Bio-Feedback; Sometimes Just Smiling, Can Make you Happy!

:D

Sleepy
2006-Feb-14, 02:01 AM
Okay, but... I mean, why? I don't get the idea behind it.Big Brother
Source UK Passport Office (http://www.passport.gov.uk/news/news.asp?intElement=1008)
Passport photos need to meet more stringent, internationally-agreed standards to enable facial recognition technology to work properly. The requirements were agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in 2003 and will enable the production of new, more secure biometric ‘ePassports’ as well as the use of facial recognition technology to counter passport fraud and for enhanced checks at international border controls...

Countries such as the UK which are part of the US visa waiver scheme must comply with the ICAO standards and begin issuing biometric passports incorporating a facial image by October 2006 to remain in the scheme.
Bet your glad you asked :)

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-14, 02:54 AM
Bet your glad you asked :)

Actually, I'd say, "neat". I am glad I asked. Now I can sleep. ;)

01101001
2006-Feb-24, 06:42 PM
A long time ago (2 weeks, a blink of an eye on evolutionary scales):


As gwis explains, new species emerge when animal groups become isolated from the rest of the group.
So Sticks doesn't miss it (original cite by, of course, ToSeek, here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38554)):

PhysOrg.com: New evidence that natural selection is a general driving force behind the origin of species (http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html)


In the last 20 years, studies of a number of specific species have demonstrated that natural selection can cause sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed, an essential first step in the formation of a new species. However, biologists have not known whether these cases represent special exceptions or illustrate a general rule.

The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-24, 07:11 PM
Hey, I thought of it first (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=689575#post689575)! :p

mid
2006-Feb-27, 09:21 AM
The reason why you're not allowed to smile on the new passports is that the super-duper amazing biometric devices we're going to all be trusting our lives to are completely fooled if you smile at them. I'd say more, but it's all thoroughly political.

Sticks
2006-Nov-18, 04:31 PM
Sorry to drag this up but, some one has put this specific Horizon programme up on Google video, here (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8173723631706439574)

Enjoy!

Sticks
2006-Nov-30, 03:11 PM
Sorry to drag this up but, some one has put this specific Horizon programme up on Google video, here (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8173723631706439574)

Enjoy!

I was looking through some old PM's and the long since banned The Saint had sent me this link (http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=42), which was a response to that very Horizon programme

Make of it what you will :think: