If the Republican Party seems a bit too conservative under the influence of the Christian Right, you might want to check out the platform of the Constitution Party - they make the GOP seem positively leftist in orientation. They have a much stronger interest in having Christianity enforced by law in America.
Warren Hastings writes for The Union Leader:
It is clear that both major parties are committed to the agenda of the “New World Order” and seek to enforce economic, military and social policies “antithetical to the interests of our independent republic,” [Michael Anthony] Peroutka said in a recent interview. ... He will run on a platform of “returning to an American understanding of government translated into Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. “That’s an understanding that there is a creator God who made all men equal . . . that rights come from Him . . . that the purpose of government is to secure, defend and protect those rights,” Peroutka said.
Peroutka supports putting God back in schools and the pledge of allegiance. The Founding Fathers never intended to build a wall between Americans and religion, Constitution Party supporters believe. The separation of church and state doctrine meant only that government was not to enforce the doctrine of any particular denomination on citizens, Peroutka said. He said that the country’s laws were founded on scripture and a belief in Biblical morality.
I wonder which portion of "scripture" the traffic laws are based upon? What about immigration policies and tariffs? Oh, right, that's absurd - just as absurd as saying that our laws generally are based upon the Bible and Christianity, but not quite as absurd as concluding that, therefore, Christianity and Christians should be given preference by our government. Even if the assertions about the origins of our laws were accurate, that would not mean that the government has the authority to promote or endorse any particular religious beliefs, nor would it mean that the government is justified in acting as though Christianity were right while other religions are wrong.
Read More:
Hello everyone. I just wanted to put some additional statements into this subject. First , why do some think it is ok for evolution to be taught in schools which is also a belief. There is no proof behind evolution as scientist will admit.They admit flaws in their theories. Second, our founding fathers speaches frequently spoke of God and the fact that this country was founded for freedom of christianity. Whether or not the public chooses to believe it or not , leaving this out of our schools history is purposely leaving out facts. We teach about greek myth but not God. The truth will come to light , as it always does from the darkness.May it find you also
No, evolution is science and is backed by as much evidence as anything else in science.
Please provide support for the second claim.
I’d be happy if the Christian god were taught as a myth alongside the Greek gods.
The religious mind cherishes feelings, opinions, intuition, anecdote, personal experience, and personal revelations over facts, evidence, research, skepticism, empiricism, and scientific inquiry.
Ergo: What many fundamentalists cannot understand is the profound difference between a belief, like that of ghosts, and scientific theories, like that of evolution, built on thousands of irrefutible facts, and challenged by every other scientist.
The theory of evolution stands on much sounder ground than the theory of gravity or the theories of what constitutes mass. Evolution, in fact, should be obvious to anybody capabable of reason and deduction.
Vaccination and many medications are predicated on evolutionary theory. And the millions of species, some new, some ancient, thus far discovered, including extremophiles that live off volcanic vents at the bottom of deep seas make evolution evidentiary to any thinking person.
The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.
- George Washington
The Founding Fathers also regarded blacks as work animals and women as weak willed and lacking the courage and intelligence of men.
If Evolution is “the only plausible scientific explanation” as “science” has deemed it, for the origin of the universe, why is the matter forced so much? Someone could say to me “the sky is purple,” & I wouldn’t feel the need to “put him in his place” with all kinds of “scientific” evidence that the sky is blue, because it’s quite obvious that of course the sky is blue. While I do realize that the two arguments are not quite the same, the same principle applies. If something is “obvious” you don’t need to defend it as maliciously as atheists tend to.
It sort of harkens back to a time when a geocentric solar system was in vogue. “Science” (& the church) pushed this idea to such an extreme that any dissenters were put to death. As it turns out, they were wrong.
If something is “obvious” as evolution, you don’t fear that other theories will prove it wrong. Doesn’t “the ‘truth’ fear nothing of lies?”
It seems to me that there is a lot of insecurity about Evolution; & rightly so. (It is quite different than the theory of gravity, which I can observe every day) If Darwinism is so obviously correct, why not teach other theories alongside it, if not only to juxtapose against each other? This, it seems, would be a valuable learning experiment.
So you argument is bascially ‘you doth protest too much..’ The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (for which you seem to be unaware), the evidence for god is zero. I wish that creatinists would understand this. Many people accept evolution, its only inresponse to deluded creationists that such people make a stand, and they have to be strong on this to prevent, especially in America, the imposition of ID into biology classes. ID is not ture and is a religiously unscientific backed defence of creation, it is not science and should therefore not be taught in science classes.
Biological evolution is no longer a theory, it is a proven fact, no scientists dispute this, the only question remaining is the mechanism by which it occurs.
The only people who don’t think it is true are the people who lack the intelligence to understand it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
If Evolution is “the only plausible scientific explanation” as “science” has deemed it, for the origin of the universe, why is the matter forced so much? — Brooke
Evolution pertains to the development of species. The study of the origin and development of the universe is cosmology. The two are often conflated by those who know next to nothing about either.
If something is “obvious” you don’t need to defend it as maliciously as atheists tend to. — Brooke
Considering your confusion of evolution with cosmology, perhaps atheists are correct in thinking that the facts of evolution are not as widely understood as they ought to be.
Also, it is not clear to me how a defense of scientific facts can be malicious. Perhaps you can provide a specific example for your own experience.
Also, do you realize that millions of religious believers accept evolution as an accurate description of the natural world? This would include, among others, all Catholics who accept the pronouncements of the Pope.
Finally on this point: how obvious should a truth be before it needs no defense? After all, you clearly felt that your notion of truth needed a little defending in this forum.
It sort of harkens back to a time when a geocentric solar system was in vogue. “Science” (& the church) pushed this idea to such an extreme that any dissenters were put to death. As it turns out, they were wrong. — Brooke
Please give me an example of a single instance when any scientist has put anyone to death as punishment for dissenting from prevailing views.
It seems to me that there is a lot of insecurity about Evolution; & rightly so. (It is quite different than the theory of gravity, which I can observe every day) — Brooke
What you observe are the actions of gravity itself, not the theory of gravity. Everyone knew that gravity existed, long before Einstein ever got chalk on his coat. The hard part was coming up with a theory that could accurately describe its actions and make testable predictions about it.
If Darwinism is so obviously correct, why not teach other theories alongside it, if not only to juxtapose against each other? This, it seems, would be a valuable learning experiment. — Brooke
In the 19th century, evolution was tested against all other theories, and it was found to be more successful than all challengers at interrogating nature. This, and only this, is the reason why it has gained its place of prominence today.
The “other theories” you want to see taught alongside evolution were already around when evolution was introduced. We don’t teach them as science in the public schools, for the same reason we don’t teach alchemy or astrology.
I do agree that public understanding would be served by a full and accurate, side-by-side comparison of evolution with creationism, but it doubtful that creationists would ever agree to such a thing, or that most members of the public would have the patience to sort through the technical issues involved.
It sort of harkens back to a time when a geocentric solar system was in vogue. “Science” (& the church) pushed this idea to such an extreme that any dissenters were put to death. As it turns out, they were wrong — Brooke
In case you would like to read up a little on the topic: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Galileo+affair
You may be surprised to discover who really were the ones eager to punish dissent.
Your remarks just validated me. Zack, I’m not denying who was at fault with the whole heliocentric/geocentric argument. It was wrong in all kinds of ways, not unlike the narrowmindedness in the responses I got.
My comment was in regard to the absence of other theories being taught in schools, not the teaching of evolution in particular, which we do need to learn.
I was not being at all defensive about “my notion of truth.” Please show me where you think I was.
I did misspeak when I used the terms interchangeably, & I know that.
For the record, I am not denying evolution, I’m just saying that it has some serious holes in it for it to be called fact.
I think that Christians would be more agreeable to a side by side comparison of the two [technical terms included] than being told that evolution is the ONLY way. You said yourself, “In the 19th century, evolution was tested against all other theories, and it was found to be more successful than all challengers at interrogating nature. This, and only this, is the reason why it has gained its place of prominence today.” just because it’s the “best” fit we’ve found so far, doesn’t make it the “fact” you claim that it is.
I’m not worried about whether someone believes in evolution or not. What I am worried about is that a person does not understand basic intellectual principles, like “a difference in degree can be a difference in kind” or “gouging and chiseling are a road to success”. Fundamentalists say they don’t believe in evolution and yet they change things every day.
Zack, I’m not denying who was at fault with the whole heliocentric/geocentric argument. — Brooke
Please clarify your position. You began by saying that scientists have sometimes put people to death as punishment for dissent. Are you now acknowledging that this has never been true?
My comment was in regard to the absence of other theories being taught in schools, not the teaching of evolution in particular, which we do need to learn. — Brooke
Clarification would be helpful here as well. Specifically, what theories do you believe ought to be taught?
I was not being at all defensive about “my notion of truth.” Please show me where you think I was. — Brooke
I never said you were being “defensive”, I said you were defending your views. There is an important difference. If your intent here is not to defend a viewpoint, then I gravely misunderstand your purpose. If that is so, perhaps you can help me understand what your purpose really is.
Also, please respond to my earlier question: if you really believe that obvious truths need no defense, how obvious does a truth need to be before we should not trouble ourselves to defend it?
For the record, I am not denying evolution, I’m just saying that it has some serious holes in it for it to be called fact. — Brooke
This is a very modified claim from your original statement about evolution: There is no proof behind evolution as scientist will admit. You began by saying no proof of evolution is available, and that scientists will admit this. Your more recent statement only claims that evolutionary theory contains “holes.” Do you recognize that these are very different claims? Which claim reflects your true position about evolution?
just because it’s the “best” fit we’ve found so far, doesn’t make it the “fact” you claim that it is. — Brooke
Why should we teach any theory that does the second-best job of explaining the facts?
Please note that in my remarks above, I did not call evolution a fact. I said that atheists were right to think that the facts of evolution are not widely understood, as your own conflation of evolution with cosmology demonstrated. Part of the problem is that some people make grand pronouncments about evolution when they actually know next to nothing about it.
And although I didn’t say so before, I am happy to clarify my position here — evolution is a fact, in the sense that we usually use that term. That is, it has been so well established by evidence that there is little point in doubting it unless and until some new evidence emerges to contradict it.
Zach, thank you again for validating my original post.
If you were reading my posts, you will note that while I said that evolution has not been sufficiently proven, I never denied evolution. I never said “There is no proof behind evolution as scientist will admit.” You are putting words in my mouth.
“Please clarify your position. You began by saying that scientists have sometimes put people to death as punishment for dissent. Are you now acknowledging that this has never been true?”
Back then, the church & science were pretty much one & the same. The scientists were usually monks or otherwise employed by the church. Therefore science was heavily influenced by the church who was persecuting dissenters. I’m not saying it’s right, that’s just how it was.
“Clarification would be helpful here as well. Specifically, what theories do you believe ought to be taught?”
I think we are going about teaching evolution the wrong way. I think we need to present it for what it is – a theory, not the scientific fact that it is so fervently presented as. I think the design aspect should be discussed as well.
“Why should we teach any theory that does the second-best job of explaining the facts?”
I don’t necessarily believe it is the best fit. Since no one really knows for certain, since no one was there, why not explore all of the evidence with an open mind?
“Also, please respond to my earlier question: if you really believe that obvious truths need no defense, how obvious does a truth need to be before we should not trouble ourselves to defend it?”
it’s not that certain truths need no defense, its the exclusive way their defended that disturbs me.
Evolution is not about the origin of the universe.
It’s not “forced” any more than anything else in science.
Please provide examples of evolution being defended “maliciously.”
Curiously, there is no fear of evolution being proven wrong.
Evolution is observed every day.
There are no other scientific theories about the diversity and development of life.
There are no other scientific theories about the development of life.
So you are denying that evolution is fact — which, for the record, means you are denying evolution. Now, what are these “holes” you speak of?
Evolution is both a fact and a theory — just like gravity. If you are going to deny that evolution is a fact (yes, you are denying evolution), it’s up to you to explain why.
Why do you think that someone had to “be there” in order to know for certain? Do you apply this standard broadly to all areas of life, or just to evolution?
My orignal post has been illustrated & validated by you folks better than I could ever describe. Thank you.
Like all your other comments, you make a claim here which you don’t support. You have been asked certain things several times, but you never answer. It seems to me that if you could support your claims or answer any of the questions, you would have.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence because this isn’t the first time you’ve come here making claims you cannot or will not support. The last time, when it was demonstrated that what you were saying was false, you stopped responding entirely.
It’s not enough to simply claim that you are right – that’s something you have earn through sound, defensible arguments. Thus far, you have offered no arguments – just unsupported and generally false assertions.
you remember me, austin? i’m so flattered. that was a long time ago ;]
Don’t be – what I remember is your evasiveness and insistence on repeating falsehoods. It should be noted that your evasiveness continues even in this last comment of yours: rather than actually support your arguments or answer questions, you launch into something irrelevant.
I guess my main question is, if you guys are so confident, what are you so afraid of? You guys almost over-defend yoursleves, which to me hints of insecurity.
Please cite any evidence of fear – and, while you’re at it, please answer the above questions and provide support for the various claims of yours which have been challenged.
just read through the posts in response to mine for multiple examples of what I’m talking about.
I initiated the question & I still haven’t gotten an answer just more examples that validate me.
That’s twice now that you made such a claim, yet you don’t seem able to cite any of those examples.
The premises behind your question were challenged and you have thus far not even tried to defend them as reasonable or valid, much less succeeded. Further such substanceless comments will be treated as trolling and removed. In other words, if you continue to refuse to support your claims and accusations, your comments will stop appearing. The comments sections here doesn’t exist so you can just keep repeating the same unsupported claims over and over. If you have substance points to make and defend, you are welcome to do so; if you just want to make random assertions, please find somewhere else.
Okay guys, you asked for it. Clearly I have nothing better to do tonight. Have at it.
1. Comment by rayscraggs — June 22, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
“ So you argument is bascially ‘you doth protest too much..’ The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (for which you seem to be unaware?)”
I am quite aware that the evidence for evolution is very strong. In this day & age, how could one not be aware?
“the evidence for god is zero”
Probably none that you’ll accept, but that doesn’t mean it’s zero.
“Many people accept evolution”
So we should just accept this because “everyone else does?” Come on, I thought we were freethinkers!
“ID is not ture and is a religiously unscientific backed defence of creation, it is not science and should therefore not be taught in science classes”.
To say that with all the complexities of the vast number of species let alone the universe is a random accident,, is impossible for me to believe.
ID studies the science behind it. Just because it claims there is a cause behind those events doesn’t make it any less scientific.
Science teaches us to deduce things logically. Based on what I can observe in day to day life I can deduce logically that something can’t come from nothing.
(I am speaking both of cosmology & evolution here, lest you think I am “confused” about the concepts.)
2. Comment by Sandi — June 22, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
“Biological evolution is no longer a theory, it is a proven fact, no scientists dispute this, the only question remaining is the mechanism by which it occurs.
The only people who don’t think it is true are the people who lack the intelligence to understand it.”
Thank you Sandi for both the beautiful example of the fervent exclusive defense I was speaking of & the attack on my intelligence
3. Comment by Zack — June 23, 2007 @ 12:27 am
“Evolution pertains to the development of species. The study of the origin and development of the universe is cosmology. The two are often conflated by those who know next to nothing about either”.
I find it extremely convenient that while Zack misses no opportunity to comment on what truly did seem like a misunderstanding of cosmology & evolution, he doesn’t even attempt to answer my question.
“ Considering your confusion of evolution with cosmology, perhaps atheists are correct in thinking that the facts of evolution are not as widely understood as they ought to be.”
Okay, next time I’ll proofread, I promise!
“ Also, it is not clear to me how a defense of scientific facts can be malicious. Perhaps you can provide a specific example for your own experience”
Is this not specific enough?
“Also, do you realize that millions of religious believers accept evolution as an accurate description of the natural world? This would include, among others, all Catholics who accept the pronouncements of the Pope.”
I’m not denying evolution.
“Finally on this point: how obvious should a truth be before it needs no defense? After all, you clearly felt that your notion of truth needed a little defending in this forum.”
I think all truths have a good defense. It becomes questionable, however when people are so forcefully insistent in their defense that it reeks of
insecurity that it ruins the whole defense. People who know they’re right don’t need to go around saying so.
“What you observe are the actions of gravity itself, not the theory of gravity. Everyone knew that gravity existed, long before Einstein ever got chalk on his coat. The hard part was coming up with a theory that could accurately describe its actions and make testable predictions about it”.
My main issue here is that gravity is an observable event. While it’s true that microevolution happens perhaps daily; macroevolution, or specieism has not happened in a while, if ever.
“This is a very modified claim from your original statement about evolution: There is no proof behind evolution as scientist will admit. You began by saying no proof of evolution is available, and that scientists will admit this. Your more recent statement only claims that evolutionary theory contains “holes.” Do you recognize that these are very different claims? Which claim reflects your true position about evolution?”
Zack misquoted me here. There is very good proof for evolution, I just find it incomplete. Perhaps you guys have a broader definition of “fact” than I do. If I want to call something a “fact” so forcefully, “new evidence” won’t “emerge to contradict it.”
This is all the time I’m going to spend on Zack
4. Comment by Austin Cline — June 24, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
“So you are denying that evolution is fact — which, for the record, means you are denying evolution. Now, what are these “holes” you speak of?”
What’s wrong with questioning something whose evidence I find incomplete?
I have discussed the “holes” with you. Your answer wasn’t satisfactory.
“Why do you think that someone had to “be there” in order to know for certain? Do you apply this standard broadly to all areas of life, or just to evolution?”
I would like to think I apply it anywhere it is appropriate.
If you don’t have time to support your claims, then you shouldn’t waste others’ time by making them without supporting them.
Well, you do deny that evolution is a fact — and you appear to be unaware of how common evolution denial is.
Whether something is “impossible” for you to believe is quite irrelevant, isn’t it?
Do you sincerely believe that this is all there is to science?
Would you care to explain what, exactly, in Sandi’s statement is an example of anything you have claimed? I’m especially eager to learn how you think Sandi has attacked your intelligence when you continually protest that you don’t deny evolution and she only criticized those who don’t think evolution is true. If you truly believe that you don’t deny evolution, then you couldn’t possibly think that Sandi was talking about you. However, if you regard Sandi’s statement as applying to you, then it must mean that you are one of those “who don’t think it [evolution] is true.”
Then Sandi wasn’t talking about you, was she?
Well, you are forcefully insistent in your defense here of your position. If you really know you are right, you don’t need to troll an atheist site with numerous unsupported and false claims. Does this mean that your comments reek of insecurity, or merely that the logic of your position is simply false?
You mean “speciation,” and it’s been observed in both the laboratory and in the wild. If you understand evolution as well as you project, then you know this already.
Nothing at all. Now, will you please answer the question: what are the “holes” you speak of? You didn’t simply “question” something, you made a clear and unambiguous claim. Please support it.
Please answer the first question: why do you think someone had to “be there” in order to know for certain? Furthermore, what standards do you use in order to determine when such a position is “appropriate”?
There are several outstanding questions, by the way.
you still haven’t answered my question.
If you are referring to your very first question, I and others challenged the assumptions behind it. Your original question is like “have you stopped beating your wife yet” – it makes invalid assumptions which prevent the question from being answered without accepting the assumptions as valid.
You cannot reasonably or ethically expect a question to be answered when its basis and assumptions are themselves being questioned. Those challenges, though, you have completely ignored and this suggests that you aren’t really interested in substantive, serious discussions. If you don’t aren’t going to address those challenges and instead insist on acting like you have a valid question that is being ignored, then you simply have no reason to post here again.
I have answered your questions, & given you a concrete example.
While you may not have been able to answer my question with a direct answer, as I suspected you couldn’t or wouldn’t, you more than demonstrated your answer to me in all of your respective posts.
It is clear to me that this forum is less about free inquiry / free thought & more about pushing the latest “groupthink,” along with a good dose of meanspirited attacks.
That probably means more to me than any of your empty explanations could ever do. Thanks again!! xxoo
No, you haven’t. Would you like a list of all the questions you have not addressed?
Does this mean you knew in advance that you were asking an invalid question?
It’s not “groupthink” or “meanspirited” to expect you to support your claims and answer questions.
This isn’t a “forum,” by the way. You can reach the site’s forum here, but the members are even less tolerant of people who don’t support their assertions.
So, trying to make others look bad by asking invalid questions which cannot reasonably be answered is something that you value highly?
“Does this mean you knew in advance that you were asking an invalid question?”
No. Although I would have liked an answer, as a means to try to understand your way of thinking as well as your views; I doubted you would give me an answer. Oh well, can’t blame a girl for trying.
“It’s not ‘groupthink’ or ‘meanspirited’ to expect you to support your claims and answer questions”
No, of course not, but the way in which you do it, refusing to accept any reason that doesn’t suit your agenda, attacking with insults any person who shows even the slightest disagreement [but this is just another one of my unsubstantiated claims] is. [It doesn't matter who Sandi was talking about].
“So, trying to make others look bad by asking invalid questions which cannot reasonably be answered is something that you value highly?”
No; but isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black
You still don’t seem to understand that you asked an invalid question — and despite having had it explained to you. At this point, I must conclude that you realize your question was wrong but are unwilling to admit error. What I can’t figure out is why. Is it because you cannot defend the assumptions behind the question? To be quite honest, I don’t care. No further comments of yours will be permitted here because you’re just trolling.
What I find interesting is how all the trolls on this site always turn out to be Christians. Christianity is supposed to be necessary for morality, but so many Christians seem to find themselves unwilling or unable to behave in an ethical manner when interacting with non-Christians.
You haven’t offered any arguments to support your claims, nevermind arguments I might disagree with.
The only insult you have cited is one that, according to you own claims, couldn’t have been directed at you. The only way you could have been insulted is if you lied about yourself.
Well, there’s another accusation which you should substantiate. Making so many accusations and claims without supporting them is highly unethical.
I find it extremely convenient that while Zack misses no opportunity to comment on what truly did seem like a misunderstanding of cosmology & evolution, he doesn’t even attempt to answer my question. — Brooke
Which question do you feel I haven’t addressed?
Is this not specific enough? — Brooke
No, it’s not nearly specific enough. I’m not even sure what you intended as the antecedent to your pronoun in that sentence.
I think all truths have a good defense. It becomes questionable, however when people are so forcefully insistent in their defense that it reeks of
insecurity that it ruins the whole defense. People who know they’re right don’t need to go around saying so. — Brooke
What about people who need to go around saying they have been “validated”? Where should we locate such people on the spectrum of insecurity?
Zack misquoted me here. — Brooke
You are right, I did misquote you. It was Tina who said, There is no proof behind evolution as scientist will admit. Mea maxima culpa, and many apologies to you and to Tina for my mistake and for any resulting inconvenience.
I’m not denying evolution. — Brooke
You see? Here we have common ground already, and we’ve barely begun the discussion.
Perhaps you guys have a broader definition of “fact” than I do. If I want to call something a “fact” so forcefully, “new evidence” won’t “emerge to contradict it.” — Brooke
Are you saying that once you have considered something a fact, no new evidence could emerge that would change your mind? Do you believe your attitude toward the nature of facts is a virtue? What do you believe would be the effect on human advancement if everyone held such a view?
This is all the time I’m going to spend on Zack — Brooke
That’s up to you, of course. It’s a free cyber-world. Au revoir!
You still haven’t said what theories ought to be taught as alternatives to evolution.
While you may not have been able to answer my question with a direct answer, as I suspected you couldn’t or wouldn’t, you more than demonstrated your answer to me in all of your respective posts. — Brooke
I’m not sure if your comment is directed just to Austin, or to the atheists here in general. Either way, you appear to be saying that you began this dialogue in suspicion and bad faith. And how surprising is it that you feel your initial biases have been, um, validated?
Isn’t confirmation of our personal biases one of the things we all fall into most easily? The struggle for understanding is largely the struggle against our own preconceptions. In such a struggle, the person who disagrees with you is your most trustworthy ally.
Back then, the church & science were pretty much one & the same. The scientists were usually monks or otherwise employed by the church. Therefore science was heavily influenced by the church who was persecuting dissenters. I’m not saying it’s right, that’s just how it was.
If you’re right about that, it should be easy as apple pie to name one of those monk-scientists who was responsible for putting dissenters to death.
My original complaint seems to have gotten lost by a lot of side issues.
My original beef had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of your postion, but with the way you present your arguments, which are hate-laden & full of bravdo. [just read over the responsive posts for an example].
I have no agenda here. I have not even mentioned what religion I am or even if I am religious, in this forum [I mean forum in the general sense, not the specific, Austin].
But it has become apparent to me that this blog is not for freethinkers, as you don’t seem to suffer skeptics gladly.
zack, it was the church who executed what they thought to be blasphemers.
zack, it was the church who executed what they thought to be blasphemers. — Brooke
Thanks for acknowledging that it was the church, and not scientists, who punished dissent with death.
My original beef had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of your postion…
Your original post included several beefs. You appear to have modified some of these upon further consideration, which is to be applauded.
… but with the way you present your arguments, which are hate-laden & full of bravdo. [just read over the responsive posts for an example]. — Brooke
Meh. Possibly some have been, although I haven’t seen you give a specific example of this.
Has it been your experince that exhanges on the internet are generally full of meek humility? Do you believe that your own posts have been unfailingly mild and temperate?
I have no agenda here. I have not even mentioned what religion I am or even if I am religious, in this forum. — Brooke
It doesn’t matter to me whether you are religious. Some of the ideas you have expressed are wrong.
But it has become apparent to me that this blog is not for freethinkers, as you don’t seem to suffer skeptics gladly. — Brooke
At any rate, no one here has burned you at the stake.
Say Brooke, I wonder if you could answer a biblically related question?
Ecclesiastes 1:5 , my favorite by the way, goes; “The Sun also rises and the Sun sets and He returns to the place from which He arose.”
The question is does this manly Sun really orbit the Earth? If he does I think that then you would have marvelous proof as to the failure of science and therefore your efforts at logic would have borne fruit.
You go girl.
“Thanks for acknowledging that it was the church, and not scientists, who punished dissent with death.”
zack, i never denied who was putting dissenters to death.
“You appear to have modified some of these upon further consideration, ”
nothing has been modified. you guys were so quick to think that just because i was questioning your methods, that i was disagreeing with you. thus you threw in all kinds of other stuff that really didn’t have anything to do with anything i was discussing.
“Meh. Possibly some have been, although I haven’t seen you give a specific example of this.”
Have I, or have I not contuinually pointed to this very blog as an example of what I’m talking about?
“Has it been your experince that exhanges on the internet are generally full of meek humility? Do you believe that your own posts have been unfailingly mild and temperate?”
I have certainly not been meanspirited when disagreed with.
“At any rate, no one here has burned you at the stake.”
No, but this is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. If someone dares disagree with you, you are so quick crucify them intellectually,
And that seems to be true only of this scientific/ issue. I believe, though have no evidence, that if it were any other scientific concept I was disagreeing with, it would be a lot less emotionally charged.
“No, but this is exactly the kind of thing i am talking about. If someone dares disagree, OR EVEN QUESTION you, you are so quick to crucify them intellectually.”
You’ve been challenged to support your claims and assumptions. That’s not “crucifying” someone intellectually, that’s simply expecting the bare minimum of any intellectually honest and serious person.
I don’t think that this is the only belief you have expressed here for which you have no supporting evidence, though it is the first time you are admitting it.
This may be because you make a lot of claims which you refuse to support.
Please provide examples of any hate.
Skepticism of evolution is no more serious, intellectually speaking, then skepticism of the Holocaust or skepticism of plate tectonics. Skepticism only has value when applied reasonably, not when applied ideologically.
zack, i never denied who was putting dissenters to death. — Brooke
Brooke, here are your statements on the topic of dissenters and death sentences, listed in the order you gave them:
It sort of harkens back to a time when a geocentric solar system was in vogue. “Science” (& the church) pushed this idea to such an extreme that any dissenters were put to death. As it turns out, they were wrong.
Back then, the church & science were pretty much one & the same. The scientists were usually monks or otherwise employed by the church. Therefore science was heavily influenced by the church who was persecuting dissenters. I’m not saying it’s right, that’s just how it was.
zack, it was the church who executed what they thought to be blasphemers.
zack, i never denied who was putting dissenters to death.
And after I said that you had modified your stated views on who put whom to death:
nothing has been modified.
Readers can review your statements and judge for themselves whether you have modified your claims.
you guys were so quick to think that just because i was questioning your methods, that i was disagreeing with you. — Brooke
You originally said that scientists put dissenters to death, and I said that they did not. That seems to me to be a genuine disagreement.
Have I, or have I not contuinually pointed to this very blog as an example of what I’m talking about? — Brooke
Pointing to the whole blog is quite general. I asked you for a specific example that supports your claim that you have been the target of “hate-laden” comments. You know — cut and paste the actual
“hate-laden” comment, so that we can see for ourselves exactly what you are talking about.
I have certainly not been meanspirited when disagreed with. — Brooke
If something is “obvious” you don’t need to defend it as maliciously as atheists tend to. — Brooke
guess my main question is, if you guys are so confident, what are you so afraid of? You guys almost over-defend yoursleves, which to me hints of insecurity. — Brooke
That probably means more to me than any of your empty explanations could ever do. — Brooke
I guess when you were calling us malicious, fearful, insecure, and empty, you meant it in a nice way.
If someone dares disagree, OR EVEN QUESTION you, you are so quick to crucify them intellectually.” — Brooke
If I had to choose between being crucified intellectually and being burned at the stake literally, then I would surely choose the former. If only the church had given such a choice to its dissenters.
I ran across an interesting tidbit in the latest Skeptic magazine [Vol. 13 No. 2, 2007 pg. 40-43] that I thought I would share with you.
In Gary J. Whittenberger’s article, The Dawkins v. Collins Debate [which is just a synopsis of the debate & does not include full transcripts of said debate]; Richard Dawkins, confirmed atheist that he is, displays the shred of humility & openness that I had hoped to get from you folks.
“Dawkins responded by saying that the God hypothesis, though not impossible…”
I cannot tell you the whole new respect I have for Dawkins, even though we would ultimately disagree.
That’s really all I was looking for ;]
Yet, for some reason, it doesn’t occur to you that perhaps you went about it in the wrong way. Everything is everyone else’s fault, never your own.
At the same time, I’ll bet you have no idea what Dawkins meant by “God hypothesis,” so really you have no basis in thinking he said anything that you should find even remotely appealing. You are investing Dawkins’ comments with you own meanings, assumptions, and prejudices when you should be just asking what he means. Does that make any sense at all?
While I do disagree with most everything Dawkins professes, I agree with him that the NOMA concept is wrong – that the question of God’s existence CAN be addressed by science. I may not necessarily subscribe to his conclusions, though.
More examples of hate-filled responses to opposing views
This from the “Comments on Antony Flew & Flawed Science blog
“So, most scientists are more stupid than you are?”
“Read them again. This time pay attention”
This from “Comments on Discussion: Discussing Religion & Atheism With Christians”
“For some reason, the atheists I encounter also tend to have a better grasp of standard English.”
I’m sorry, but where is the hate? I see no hate in any of your examples. At most, just a lack of patience. Moreover, your original claim was clearly about this topic and this comment thread. The fact that you had to go elsewhere to look for examples effectively proves that you couldn’t find any here, but I don’t see any acknowledgement of that fact.
Then again, you don’t acknowledge most of the questions and challenges posed to you. Frankly, I doubt your ability to construct and defend a logical argument. You certainly have evinced no such ability here, despite repeated prompting to do so.
The simple fact is, you have denied the reality of evolution and then you denied saying so. You have asserted that there are “serious holes” in evolution, but have never bothered to explain what they supposedly are. All of this occurred in your first couple of posts and, dozens later, you’re still avoiding supporting your claims or answering the challenges. In the end, all that’s left of your position are false and unsupported claims, yet you insinuate that there is something wrong with others for not taking all that seriously enough. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be serious — and if you don’t take your own claims seriously enough to care to support them, you can’t expect anyone else to take them seriously either.
Brooke appears to have a strange definition of “hate”. The examples given are merely robust debating ripostes – the sort that entertain rather than incite. “Hate-filled”, I suggest would have to include words or phrases like “scumbags”, “murderous swine”, “gas-chamber fodder”, “moronic sub-human”, etc., etc., all implying that the person concerned can be treated not merely with disdain, but with complete disregard for their human rights and dignity – the sort of treatment meted out to Palestinians, for example, by Jewish zealots in the West Bank or Islamists in Iran, Pakistan, etc.
my comments were certainly not spcecific to this comment thread, but this topic in general. so it is only appropriate that i would cite other sources.
mustbcrackers- ask the recipients of thoe comments if they felt they were being treated with “respect” or “dignity.”
What would have been appropriate would be citing actual examples of hatred. Even more appropriate would be to treat your own claims and statements with enough seriousness to support them.
Stupidity not science is the reason so many scientists still deny the probable existence of a God. — John Simpson
“So, most scientists are more stupid than you are?” — given by Austin in response to John’s comment, and cited by Brooke as an example of a “hate-laden” comment.
If Austin’s comment is “hate-laden,” then so is John’s, and John’s came first.
For some reason, the atheists I encounter also tend to have a better grasp of standard English. — my post in another thread, cited by Brooke as an example of “hate-laden” comments.
Atheists are not much more likely than anyone else to be uniformly reasonable or logical, but in my experience, they are a little more likely to at least know the principles of reason and logic.
For some reason, the atheists I encounter also tend to have a better grasp of standard English. — my entire post on the topic.
If these are the most robust examples of “hate-laden” comments you can dig up, then I would say atheists are much more decorous than most others. It is small wonder that you seek out our polite little band.
Please note, too, that I had asked you for examples of “hate-laden” comments directed at you. Are you unable to provide even a single one?
And are you forced to go elsewhere for an example, or can you find one in this thread?
ask the recipients of thoe comments if they felt they were being treated with “respect” or “dignity.” — Brooke
Is this the standard you apply to your own comments?
Perhaps I overstated. “Disrespectful” might be more accurate than “hate-laden.”
Sorry.
While we’re all feeling the love, I wonder if you could clarify one of my “beefs” for me.
I know that according to your theory, or fact, if you prefer; we are the products of a random assortment of modifications a la natural selection. But where does the first life substance, for lack of a better term, come from?
How does Darwinian Evolution account for what Michael Behe calls “the concept of irreducible complexity?” Why don’t we see examples of speciation everyday? Are we the pinnacle of the life chain? Or are more species on the way?
Right there, in your first words, you reveal that you really don’t understand the subject. Evolution is both fact and theory; if you don’t know how and why that is so, then you really don’t know enough to be challenging it.
1. Darwinian evolution is about the development of life, not the origin of life. Similar concepts apply to both, naturally, but they are still separate subjects and asking how evolutionary theory explains the origin of life once again reveals that you simply don’t understand the subject.
2. Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” has not been demonstrated to have any validity. He has yet to point to any natural, organic structures which are “irreducibly complex.” He made it up as way to have a scientific-sounding attack on evolution, but every time he’s tried to claim something as irreducibly complex he has failed.
Do you know what speciation is?
“ if you don’t know how and why that is so, then you really don’t know enough to be challenging it.”
I’m not challenging you.
“Darwinian evolution is about the development of life, not the origin of life. Similar concepts apply to both, naturally, but they are still separate subjects and asking how evolutionary theory explains the origin of life once again reveals that you simply don’t understand the subject.”
I do understand that evolution is not about the origin of life. While I know a bit about evolution, I know little about what supposedly started it. I am asking you, because I don’t know. I am not “challenging” it. I’m trying to learn about it.
“Do you know what speciation is?”
macroevolution, or the process of one species evolving into another
The pronoun I used was “it,” not “me.” You are trying to challenge evolution, but you don’t know enough about it to do so.
Then it makes no sense to ask about the origin of life when trying to challenge or question evolution. You might as well ask how evolution accounts for the color of the sky.
Then you should know that we shouldn’t expect to see speciation every day – a lot of changes have to accumulate for that, and if a species is well-adapted to their environment, there’s no need for even small changes, much less many accumulated changes. Speciation has been observed, though, in both the laboratory and in the field.
Austin, I am really not trying to challange you or it.
My question was with regard to the origin of life, which was the precurser to evolution. What started the whole process?
And are you saying we have no new species to look forward to? Are all species content?
Perhaps I overstated. “Disrespectful” might be more accurate than “hate-laden.”
Sorry. — Brooke
Thanks for acknowledging that you cannot support your repeated claim that you have been the target of “hate-laden” comments. Apology accepted.
Given your comments thus far, such a claim is not credible. You cannot say that you are “not really” trying to challenge evolution when you earlier wrote that it is “right” for there to be “insecurity” over evolution, that alternatives should be taught, that there are “holes” in the theory of evolution, and that it isn’t a fact.
Chemistry.
No, I’m not saying that and my words cannot be reasonably construed to mean that. I said exactly what my words stated: we shouldn’t expect speciation to happen all the time because when a species is well-adapted to its environment, there is little pressure to change. This doesn’t mean that speciation doesn’t happen or won’t happen, just that under current circumstances we shouldn’t expect to see it all the time.
1. “Given your comments thus far, such a claim is not credible. You cannot say that you are “not really” trying to challenge evolution when you earlier wrote that it is “right” for there to be “insecurity” over evolution, that alternatives should be taught, that there are “holes” in the theory of evolution, and that it isn’t a fact.”
Earlier, I was indeed trying to challenge evolution. Now I am trying to understand it better. & who better to ask but the experts.
2. “Chemistry.”
Could you be more specific?
3. Might global warming [supposing you subscribe to this], cause a change?
[it could bring new meaning to "i'm going through the change."] ;]
So, you admit that you were challenging something you don’t understand?
Not in the space of comments to a blog post. You need some introductory biology and biochemistry books.
It will accelerate climate change and species well-adapted to the old environment will find themselves not so well adapted anymore. So, yes, we should expect to see more changes – but more extinctions, first. Then small populations and new species will expand to fill the spaces left.
“So, you admit that you were challenging something you don’t understand?”
I was challenging evolution which i do know a thing or two about [don't claim to be an expert: never did].
It is the so-called origin of life that I never understood.
“You need some introductory biology and biochemistry books”
can you recommend some for me?
“Then small populations and new species will expand to fill the spaces left.”
will we be able to see species actually transforming or morphing [not sure the right term] into something else?
& Does the extent to which the environment is incompatable speed up this process at all?
Earlier, I was indeed trying to challenge evolution. Now I am trying to understand it better. — Brooke
You have claimed that scientists have sometimes killed those with dissenting views, that you have been the target of hate-laden comments, and that you don’t deny evolution.
In the fullness of time you have found it necessary to retract all of these claims.
Would you like for other people to see you as an honest person with something worthwhile to say? Would you like to see yourself in this way?
& who better to ask but the experts.
About.com does have resident experts on science, evolution, and biology. Austin’s focus here is on atheism.
I’m sure you do know one or possibly two things about evolution, but you don’t understand it on even a superficial level.
I would recommend taking introductory biology and biochem courses at a local university.
Evolution takes place across multiple generations, so it depends on how long you live and how closely you watch.
” In the fullness of time you have found it necessary to retract all
of these claims.”
I don’t retract any of those claims. I modified the one about
hate-laden comments to disrespect. but it means the same thing to me.
“Would you like for other people to see you as an honest person with
something worthwhile to say? Would you like to see yourself in this
way?”
I do see myself that way, so it really shouldn’t matter how others see me.
“About.com does have resident experts on science, evolution, and
biology. Austin’s focus here is on atheism.”
This blog is one of many about evolution. Are you saying Austin is not
an expert on evolution as well as atheism? I disagree, but then you
must remember I only “know one or possibly two things about
evolution,” and I “don’t understand it on even a superficial level.”
Keeping this in mind, I have some non-combative, inquiries that I could use your help with.
i went to wikkipedia just for a cursory introductory look at origin of life.
These are some direct quotes from the “origin of life” topic.
“the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today.”
I realize that life would no doubt be “messing” with whatever compounds might be necessary. but wouldn’t this always have been a problem? in other words, wouldn’t life always be encountering
interference of some sort?
or is this referring to the very first spontaneous generation?
“It is therefore hypothesized that such systems may be able to evolve into autocatalytic sets of self-replicating, metabolically active entities that would predate the life forms known today.”
“Another unsolved issue in chemical evolution is the origin of homochirality”
“The question “How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?” is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses”
It seems that amid all of the chemistry issues, seems to be a recurring theme. “we don’t know,” “we haven’t been able to simulate/prove this, but don’t worry we’re on it.” kind of thing.
how is this faith any different from any other? If these questions are any indication of the state of science, it sounds like there are still questions remaining about how this all began.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Let me do a better job of asking this:
“the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today.”
I realize that the very act of living would no doubt interfere with whatever compounds are necessary to cause evolution.
while this is especially true at our highly evolved state. wouldn’t there have always been some issue even at earlier stages that would cause interference with evolutionary processes?
I don’t retract any of those claims. — Brooke
Listing your claims and counter-claims would read like Abbott and Costello doing “Who’s On First,” but I’ll do it if duty calls. Is this the story you’re sticking with?
I do see myself that way, so it really shouldn’t matter how others see me. — Brooke
The number of people you’re kidding might be as high as one, depending on how much you believe your own story.
This blog is one of many about evolution. Are you saying Austin is not
an expert on evolution as well as atheism? — Brooke
If you’re looking for expertise in evolution, there are people who have made it their life’s work. Austin is a smart guy, and well-educated on a wide variety of topics. You are certain to increase your understanding if you follow his advice.
If these questions are any indication of the state of science, it sounds like there are still questions remaining about how this all began. — Brooke
Yes, there are tons and tons of things we don’t know — about how life began, and about a million other topics. When did you start thinking anything else was the case?
Am I right in thinking that you are going to ignore Austin’s excellent advice about enrolling in some introductory college courses?
zack- i would love to take an introductory biology class.
“but I’ll do it if duty calls. Is this the story you’re sticking with?”
Please do, I wouldn’t have asked if I didn’t want to know.
I just killed one of those flying roach-like creatures.
Are they an example of evolution? did i kill a potential bird?
Please do, I wouldn’t have asked if I didn’t want to know. — Brooke
It’s not clear what question you have in mind. Will you repeat it?
zack- i would love to take an introductory biology class. — Brooke
I just killed one of those flying roach-like creatures.
Are they an example of evolution? did i kill a potential bird? — Brooke
Save that one to charm your instructor on the first night of class. I look forward to your recount of their answer.
believe it or not, i wasn’t trying to “charm” anyone with it. after the ordeal of killing it, i got to thinking about whether it might be one of the gradual changes required to turn into something else. i immediately thought of birds, b/c it was so huge. that’s all. but it is an honest question.
“Listing your claims and counter-claims would read like Abbott and Costello doing “Who’s On First,” but I’ll do it if duty calls.”
sorry, i misunderstood what you were referring to at first. & you’ve already done this. but if you look closely at these so-called claims/counter claims, you would realize that nothing i’ve said has been retracted.
Are there any detailed Dawinian accounts
for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system?
sorry, i misunderstood what you were referring to at first. & you’ve already done this. –Brooke
Well, yes.
but if you look closely at these so-called claims/counter claims, you would realize that nothing i’ve said has been retracted. — Brooke
If that’s your story today, then you’re welcome to it.
Are there any detailed Dawinian accounts
for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system? — Brooke
Let me know what your instructor has to say about it.
i’d like to hear what you have to say about it.
i’d like to hear what you have to say about it. — Brooke
I say you should take a class.
i plan to, but i’d still like to hear what you & austin have to say about it.
i plan to, but i’d still like to hear what you & austin have to say about it. — Brooke
I say you should take a class.
“Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing & why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this….The point is that there is no significant answer.”
Darwinist philospher Michael Ruse
“Let me end certainly by saying that although I got on quite well with Johnson at the personal level, I still think that his book is a slippery piece of work. And you’re absolutely right that he, like any lawyer, is out to win. That’s the name of the game in law. And certainly he can get points by shifting back and forth on meanings of naturalism, or if he can get a report on what Ed Manier and I were doing, and then sort of take it out of context, I’ve no reason to think that he wouldn’t do that sort of thing.” — Michael Ruse, in his 1993 address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, commenting on Phillip Johnson.
First of all, Let me say that I’m not quite sure how to respond to Zack’s comment, as I don’t see how it relates at all to my previous quote The only commonality is that we were quoting the same person, but on two completely different topics.
Second; I’m no lawyer, but I’m not sure how shifting back and forth on meanings of naturalism, or anything for that matter, can win “points” with anyone.
Third; I don’t understand why questioning, or challenging something is so taboo with you guys. Isn’t that the way you guys learned?
Fourth; How does natural selection account for human emotions?
First of all, Let me say that I’m not quite sure how to respond to Zack’s comment, as I don’t see how it relates at all to my previous quote — Brooke
You introduced Michael Ruse into the discussion rather randomly, and I am as entitled to quote him as you are. Also, I cited the source of my quote — a practice you might strive to emulate.
…I’m not sure how shifting back and forth on meanings of naturalism, or anything for that matter, can win “points” with anyone. — Brooke
Heh. That’s funny, coming from you.
Third; I don’t understand why questioning, or challenging something is so taboo with you guys. — Brooke
Question away! Challenge to your heart’s content! Shake your fist!
Isn’t that the way you guys learned? — Brooke
It’s not the only way I learn. I also read books, take classes, ruminate on experiences — it’s a lot of work! I can see why you prefer to just be spoon fed.
Fourth; How does natural selection account for human emotions? — Brooke
How are things going with that introductory biology class you were so eager to take?
“You introduced Michael Ruse into the discussion rather randomly, and I am as entitled to quote him as you are. Also, I cited the source of my quote — a practice you might strive to emulate.”
1. You are as entitled to him as I am, it is the context in which you seemed to use it that I am questioning.
2. Michael Ruse, Can a Darwinian be a Christian? (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2001), 73
“Heh. That’s funny, coming from you.”
I have not shifted back & forth on anything except for my rewording of one accusation.
Question away! Challenge to your heart’s content! Shake your fist!
I am, but not in the way that you seem to be interpreting it. I have no desire to “shake my fist.”
it’s a lot of work! I can see why you prefer to just be spoon fed.
I am well aware of the amount of work it is. The spoon fed remark is both unnecessary & untrue. But it seems to fit your agenda, so I’ll leave it alone. It is also good example of my original post, which seems to have gotten lost among some side issues.
How are things going with that introductory biology class you were so eager to take?
It is halfway through the summer semester, I’ll have to wait at least until fall to do it. Until then, I only have this forum & some books to amuse myself with. Though, I think I’ve lost Austin.
You are as entitled to him as I am, it is the context in which you seemed to use it that I am questioning. — Brooke
What was the context in which you were quoting Ruse?
I have not shifted back & forth on anything except for my rewording of one accusation. — Brooke
So you keep saying.
I have no desire to “shake my fist.” — Brooke
OK by me.
I am well aware of the amount of work it is. — Brooke
You haven’t given any reason to suppose that you do. What independent efforts have you made to find some answers to any of the questions you post here?
The spoon fed remark is both unnecessary & untrue. — Brooke
Do I get to decide which of your remarks are necessary and true? Yay!
But it seems to fit your agenda, so I’ll leave it alone. — Brooke
You’ll leave it alone, except for the paragraph that you devote to it.
It is also good example of my original post… — Brooke
You do appear to want to be spoon-fed. Sorry if that strikes you as rude, but it is the way you appear to me. You could counter this impression by showing evidence of some actual independent effort on your own part to find answers to your questions.
It is halfway through the summer semester, I’ll have to wait at least until fall to do it. — Brooke
The library is still open. Think of this time as your chance to prepare for that fall class.
Until then, I only have this forum & some books to amuse myself with. — Brooke
Then by all means, crack those books!
This forum doesn’t exist to amuse you, and you mostly express dissatisfaction with it anyway.
Though, I think I’ve lost Austin.
– Brooke
Brooke, you’ve lost everyone, and quite some time ago. If there’s anyone still reading except for you and me, I’d be pretty surprised.
“You haven’t given any reason to suppose that you do. What independent efforts have you made to find some answers to any of the questions you post here?”
This is only a small part of my research, & though certainly the least enjoyable, it has proved to be the most fruitful. For that I thank you.
Y’know Zack, when I try to engage in a discussion with you & ask questions about YOUR view [I already know MY view], you blow me off & accuse me of wanting to be spoon-fed. But I am used to this sort of reaction from your kind.
“You’ll leave it alone, except for the paragraph that you devote to it.”
Not sure what you are referring to here.
perhaps an earlier post?
“This forum doesn’t exist to amuse you”
then I guess my amusement is an unintentional by-product. thanks anyway ;]
This is only a small part of my research… — Brooke
Well, don’t be coy. What’s the rest of your, um, “research”?
… & though certainly the least enjoyable, it has proved to be the most fruitful. — Brooke
No pain, no gain. Or so I’ve been told.
For that I thank you. — Brooke
I’m a giver!
‘Well, don’t be coy. What’s the rest of your, um, “research”?”
searching for comments like this
“You’ll leave it alone, except for the paragraph that you devote to it.”
Not sure what you are referring to here.
perhaps an earlier post? — Brooke
I’m referring to this paragraph:
I am well aware of the amount of work it is. The spoon fed remark is both unnecessary & untrue. But it seems to fit your agenda, so I’ll leave it alone. It is also good example of my original post, which seems to have gotten lost among some side issues. — Brooke
You sure talk a lot when you’re busy leaving a thing alone.
then I guess my amusement is an unintentional by-product. thanks anyway ;] — Brooke
Since the only alternative you named was reading a book, apparently your time in this forum does save you from a fate you seem to dread.
Y’know Zack, when I try to engage in a discussion with you & ask questions about YOUR view [I already know MY view], you blow me off & accuse me of wanting to be spoon-fed. — Brooke
I didn’t blow you off. I told you that my view is that you should take a class.
But I am used to this sort of reaction from your kind. — Brooke
Oh, so harsh. Almost — what’s the phrase? Hate-laden.
Well, don’t be coy. What’s the rest of your, um, “research”?”
searching for comments like this — Brooke
When you take that class, they’ll clear up some of the ideas you have about what counts as “research.” (Pssst — chatty internet forums don’t count.)
depends on what you’re searching for ;]
depends on what you’re searching for ;] — Brooke
Happy hunting!
Zack, Brooke isn’t “hunting” for information about evolution and science. She appears to be here for no other reason than to say as many annoying, passive-aggressive things as possible until atheists respond with something that will feed her prejudices and reinforce her anti-science, anti-atheist bigotry. Once that’s achieved, she’s done all the “research” she needs and she can move on to continue the cycle elsewhere.
I actually did start looking here for info about evolution & humanism. I didn’t find many answers, just arrogant bravado, which didn’t do anything to help your case with me. [see my earlier post.]
If “annoying” questions bother you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your participation in these blogs. I would imagine that you should be used to these ‘annoying” questions by now.
I usually only consider a question “annoying” when I am uncomfortable with the line of questioning. But I’m sure that that is not true with you guys. You are, after all, experts;
& when you are an expert, while I am sure that any question is somewhat annoying to you, you learn how to deal with it in a professional manner.
That’s clearly false, since your first posts were to deny evolution and promote creationism.
This would be the passive-aggressive tactic again. Posting for the specific purpose of getting a negative reaction which you can use to pretend that you’ve reinforced your prejudices is a form of trolling. Further such posts, including posts which attempt to excuse or justify trolling behavior, will be removed.
Austin, true. Hard to imagine that she gets much gratification from such a sad little game, but people are strange.
I actually did start looking here for info about evolution & humanism. — Brooke
Did you know there are classes about those subjects? How’s enrollment going?
I didn’t find many answers, just arrogant bravado, which didn’t do anything to help your case with me. [see my earlier post.] — Brooke
Allow me to arrograntly suggest with bravado that if you want to learn about evolution and humanism, you visit your local library and take some classes.
If “annoying” questions bother you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your participation in these blogs. — Brooke
If “arrogant bravado” bothers you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your participation in these blogs.
I would imagine that you should be used to these ‘annoying” questions by now. — Brooke
I would imagine that you should be used to “people being annoyed by you” by now. I suspect that this is not confined to the people you meet in internet forums.
I usually only consider a question “annoying” when I am uncomfortable with the line of questioning. — Brooke
Is that what you told your Mom and Dad when they asked you to stop saying, “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”
But I’m sure that that is not true with you guys. You are, after all, experts; — Brooke
Hey! Is that sarcasm? How hate-laden!
& when you are an expert, while I am sure that any question is somewhat annoying to you, you learn how to deal with it in a professional manner. — Brooke
Then no one is going to mistake you for an expert, I would guess.
“If “arrogant bravado” bothers you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your participation in these blogs.”
it doesn’t bother me a bit. in fact it shows insecurity on your part, whether you realize it or not. i was initially questioning your attitudes, not your philosphy. you just assumed that i was disagreeing with you.
“I would imagine that you should be used to ‘people being annoyed by you’ by now. I suspect that this is not confined to the people you meet in internet forums.”
you’re probably right ;]
“Is that what you told your Mom and Dad when they asked you to stop saying, ‘Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?’”
no
“Then no one is going to mistake you for an expert, I would guess.”
I am not claiming to be an expert. I have a lot to learn. There is so much more I want to learn.
it doesn’t bother me a bit. in fact it shows insecurity on your part, whether you realize it or not. — Brooke
Meh. So you say. You’re not big on supporting your claims.
i was initially questioning your attitudes, not your philosphy. — Brooke
As I told you before — Question away! Challenge to your heart’s content! In you find you are so inclinded, shake your fist!
you just assumed that i was disagreeing with you. — Brooke
Nice to know that in reality you agree with me. It reflects well on you.
you’re probably right ;] — Brooke
Oh, boy! Right again!
I am not claiming to be an expert. I have a lot to learn. — Brooke
OK.
There is so much more I want to learn. — Brooke
Go for it! Hit the books! Take those classes!
“you just assumed that i was disagreeing with you. — Brooke
Nice to know that in reality you agree with me. It reflects well on you”
I wouldn’t go that far, but i am not challenging you in the way that you guys think i am. i thought atheists & humanists encouraged critical thinking.
In fact, i seem to remember reading something austin wrote;
“This is why I have always said that the fact that a person is a theist is less important than whether or not they are skeptical about claims — both their own and others’. This is also one reason why I have said that it is more important to try and encourage skepticism and critical thinking in people rather than to try and simply “convert” them to atheism.”
Austin Cline Do Atheists Choose Atheism
interesting…
perhaps this doesn’t pertain to blogs.
although to be fair, no one here has been trying to convert me to atheism.
I wouldn’t go that far… — Brooke
So you both agree and disagree. Or you neither agree nor disagree. Hmm. And to think some have implied that you flip-flop.
… but i am not challenging you in the way that you guys think i am. — Brooke
I don’t see you as a challenge. You come across as sort of silly, and you seem to have a difficult time expressing yourself with much clarity.
i thought atheists & humanists encouraged critical thinking. — Brooke
My answer is the same as it’s always been: Question away! Challenge to your heart’s content!
How many times have you used this same line? Why should anyone invest any effort to try and engage you as they would a serious person, if this is honestly the best you can bring to a conversation?
although to be fair, no one here has been trying to convert me to atheism. — Brooke
What? You’re not an atheist?
“So you both agree and disagree. Or you neither agree nor disagree. Hmm. And to think some have implied that you flip-flop.”
i don’t know enough to know what i believe. i know i agree with you guys on some subjects, but disagree on others.
“I don’t see you as a challenge. You come across as sort of silly, and you seem to have a difficult time expressing yourself with much clarity”
this is probably because you’ve avoided my original issue
& won’t answer any of my questions.
“My answer is the same as it’s always been: Question away! Challenge to your heart’s content!
How many times have you used this same line? Why should anyone invest any effort to try and engage you as they would a serious person, if this is honestly the best you can bring to a conversation?”
i could say the same to you. its pretty hard to engage in dialogue when this is your standard answer. now if you just don’t know…
“What? You’re not an atheist?”
no, but i’m probably not your stereo-typical Christian
i don’t know enough to know what i believe. — Brooke
This has been clear from the start. However, it’s the first time that you have said so, and it is a move toward honesty on which I congratulate you.
If you’re not exactly sure what you believe, what makes you think you’re expressing your thoughts clearly? You always seem eager to claim that you’ve been misunderstood, rather than acknowledge that your statements have been ambiguous or contradictory.
i know i agree with you guys on some subjects, but disagree on others. — Brooke
In that case, you can say when you agree, you can say when you disagree, and you can say when you’ve changed your mind.
this is probably because you’ve avoided my original issue
& won’t answer any of my questions. — Brooke
Anyone can read the history of our conversation and decide for themselves whether this claim has merit — assuming that anyone but you and I are still reading, which seems unlikely.
i could say the same to you. its pretty hard to engage in dialogue when this is your standard answer. now if you just don’t know… — Brooke
One problem with your statements — and trust me, the field is white unto harvest — is that you use too many pronouns with ambiguous antecedents. I would guess that you do that on purpose, and possibly out of habit.
no, but i’m probably not your stereo-typical Christian — Brooke
What stereotypes do you hold about Christians?
“you always seem eager to claim that you’ve been misunderstood, rather than acknowledge that your statements have been ambiguous or contradictory.”
some of my statements may have been ambiguous, if that is the case, i apologize. none of them, however, have been contradictory.
“Anyone can read the history of our conversation and decide for themselves whether this claim has merit”
go for it.
“…you use too many pronouns with ambiguous antecedents. I would guess that you do that on purpose, and possibly out of habit.”
i hadn’t realized that i would be graded on my writing style here. i’ll have to ask my teacher next time i see her.
“What stereotypes do you hold about Christians?”
i hold more stereotypes about atheists.
“However, it’s the first time that you have said so,”
if this is true, where did these statements come from?
I am not claiming to be an expert. I have a lot to learn. — Brooke
There is so much more I want to learn. — Brooke
some of my statements may have been ambiguous, if that is the case, i apologize. — Brooke
An apology is only meaningful when you work to correct the offending behavior.
none of them, however, have been contradictory. — Brooke
Do you think anyone believes you when you say this? Do you even believe it yourself?
go for it. — Brooke
Who are you talking to here?
i hadn’t realized that i would be graded on my writing style here. — Brooke
You’re the one grading on style — remember “arrogant bravado” and so on and so on?
I said that your statements are often ambiguous, which pertains more to syntax than to style, and I identified one cause. Clear writing and clear thinking are related skills.
You’re also the one who keeps saying you want to learn. It would be good manners to show some appreciation when you get what you ask for.
i’ll have to ask my teacher next time i see her. — Brooke
OK.
i hold more stereotypes about atheists. –Brooke
I’m not a bit surprised. But before we get to that, how about answering my question — what stereotypes do you hold about Christians?
if this is true, where did these statements come from?
I am not claiming to be an expert. I have a lot to learn. — Brooke
There is so much more I want to learn. — Brooke
I said it was the first time you had acknowledged that you don’t know what you believe, not that it was the first time you had admitted ignorance about matters requiring expertise. Along with clear writing, careful reading is an important skill.
Who are you talking to here?
whomever might want to take up your challenge, since it appears to be just you & I, you may try. you have repeated this statement several times, yet I have yet to see where anything I say contradicts.
“You’re the one grading on style — remember “arrogant bravado” and so on and so on?”
arrogant bravado is an attitude that comes through in your writing, not a particular style. & I have yet to be proven wrong on this.
You’re also the one who keeps saying you want to learn. It would be good manners to show some appreciation when you get what you ask for.”
thank you. ever so much for the lessons in writing skills. I haven’t observed you sharing your words of wisdom on this to anyone else in any other forum. do you only nitpick the people who disagree with you?
what stereotypes do you hold about Christians?
probably the same ones you do, but that is off topic here.
“I said it was the first time you had acknowledged that you don’t know what you believe,”
I am trying to sort out what I believe. I said many times that I wanted to learn more about evolution
“Along with clear writing, careful reading is an important skill.”
so true
…I have yet to see where anything I say contradicts. — Brooke
And until you see it, it just isn’t there, is that it? Seems like an arrogant attitude.
On the topic of your self-contradictions, more in a moment.
arrogant bravado is an attitude that comes through in your writing, not a particular style. — Brooke
My original beef had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of your postion, but with the way you present your arguments, which are hate-laden & full of bravdo. –Brooke, entry #36, June 29, 2007, emphasis added
style n.
1. The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed: a style of speech and writing.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/style
& I have yet to be proven wrong on this. — Brooke
Proven wrong about whether I display “arrogant bravado,” or proven wrong about whether “arrogant bravado” is a style?
You seem to more concerned about appearing self-contradictory than you do about being vague or uninformed.
thank you. ever so much for the lessons in writing skills. — Brooke
Is your thanks sincere, or is it an example of arrogant bravado?
I haven’t observed you sharing your words of wisdom on this to anyone else in any other forum. — Brooke
No one else keeps implying it’s a character flaw if I don’t give them a free education.
do you only nitpick the people who disagree with you? — Brooke
Do you disagree with me? Earlier you said that we weren’t justified in assuming you disagree. You made it sound as if we were rushing to judgement if we thought you disagreed:
you guys were so quick to think that just because i was questioning your methods, that i was disagreeing with you. — Brooke, entry #40, June 30, 2007
On the subject of nitpicking, find more below.
probably the same ones you do, but that is off topic here. — Brooke
No more so than when you yourself introduced the matter of “stereotypical Christians” just a few lines ago:
no, but i’m probably not your stereo-typical Christian — Brooke, entry #117, July 21, 2007
So, exactly what stereotypes do you hold about Christians?
I am trying to sort out what I believe. — Brooke
Nothing wrong with that.
I said many times that I wanted to learn more about evolution — Brooke
And I said many times that the best way to learn about evolution is to read some books and take some classes. For some reason, you appear to think that’s not a realistic notion.
so true — Brooke
Do you really believe that it is “so true” that clear writing is important, or do you really believe that it is “nit-picky” to expect clear writing?
You asked for an example of how you contradict yourself, and here is an example where your statement at the beginning of an entry is contradicted by your statment at the end of that very same entry.
“Do you disagree with me? Earlier you said that we weren’t justified in assuming you disagree. You made it sound as if we were rushing to judgement if we thought you disagreed.”
I honestly don’t know enough to know exactly what I agree/disagree. I think that you were rushing to judgement. You only just now picked up on the fact that I don’t know what I believe yet. You just assumed that I was disagreeing with you, because I was asking questions.
“No more so than when you yourself introduced the matter of “stereotypical Christians” just a few lines ago:”
I agree; but two wrongs don’t make a right.
“And I said many times that the best way to learn about evolution is to read some books and take some classes. For some reason, you appear to think that’s not a realistic notion.”
I never said that. There you go putting words in my mouth again. I only said that classes are unrealistic for the summer. I told you that I am reading up on it.
“Do you really believe that it is “so true” that clear writing is important, or do you really believe that it is “nit-picky” to expect clear writing?”
I don’t think it is nitpicky at all to expect clear writing. My “contradictory statement” pertained the appearance of your expectations towards people who agree with you & people you think are disagreeing with you.
I honestly don’t know enough to know exactly what I agree/disagree. — Brooke
If you don’t know, why do you expect us to figure it out?
I think that you were rushing to judgement. — Brooke
And yet, in entry #122, you are back to saying you do disagree with me.
You only just now picked up on the fact that I don’t know what I believe yet. — Brooke
My first comment to you, at entry #8 on June 23, was that your beliefs about evolution and cosmology were confused and conflated. In entry #118 on July 22, I said that it has been clear from the start that you don’t know what you believe.
You just assumed that I was disagreeing with you, because I was asking questions. — Brooke
I have encouraged you more than once to ask any questions you like. As for whether you agree or disagree about anything, your comments on that have been such a muddle that it is impossible to say anything useful about it at this point.
I agree; but two wrongs don’t make a right. — Brooke
Well, at any rate it’s a welcome change to see you say clearly whether you agree or disagree on something. I hope you don’t come back in a minute or two and say that you claimed all along to disagree, or that you just don’t know your own mind enough to say either way.
I never said that. There you go putting words in my mouth again. — Brooke
What are the words, exactly, that I am supposed to have put into your mouth?
I only said that classes are unrealistic for the summer. — Brooke
No libraries or bookstores in your town? There’s always Amazon.
I told you that I am reading up on it. — Brooke
What are you reading?
thank you. ever so much for the lessons in writing skills. I haven’t observed you sharing your words of wisdom on this to anyone else in any other forum. do you only nitpick the people who disagree with you? — Brooke, entry 122, July 22, 2007
I don’t think it is nitpicky at all to expect clear writing. — Brooke, entry #132, July 28, 2007
…I have yet to see where anything I say contradicts. — Brooke, entry 122, July 22, 2007
My “contradictory statement” pertained the appearance of your expectations towards people who agree with you & people you think are disagreeing with you. — Brooke
Do I only think you disagree with me, or do you in fact disagree with me?
Please give an example of an instance where I praised someone’s failure of clarity because, in your estimation, they agreed with me.
And why do you put “contradictory statement” in quotation marks?
“thank you. ever so much for the lessons in writing skills…” — Brooke, entry 122, July 22, 2007
i was merely doing what you had asked in the previous entry
“Please give an example of an instance where I praised someone’s failure of clarity because, in your estimation, they agreed with me.”
You’ve never praised failure of clarity, but i’ve never seen you point it out either.
“If you don’t know, why do you expect us to figure it out?”
I never claimed to disbelieve in evolution, you just assumed I was
“The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (for which you seem to be unaware)” rayscraggs (6)
“(yes, you are denying evolution)” Austin (17)
“if you don’t know how and why that is so, then you really don’t know enough to be challenging it.” Austin (61)
“I think that you were rushing to judgement. — Brooke And yet, in entry #122, you are back to saying you do disagree with me. –Zack”
I should have said “do you only nitpick the people who you think disagree with you?,” or “have the audacity to question me,” [sorry, couldn’t resist some arrogant bravado here]
“My first comment to you, at entry #8 on June 23, was that your beliefs about evolution and cosmology were confused and conflated. In entry #118 on July 22, I said that it has been clear from the start that you don’t know what you believe.”
But you meant that as an insult, certainly not as a means of instruction or observation.
I have encouraged you more than once to ask any questions you like. As for whether you agree or disagree about anything, your comments on that have been such a muddle that it is impossible to say anything useful about it at this point.
The reason things have gotten so “muddled” as you say, is because you aren’t answering any of my questions & are making assumptions that may or may not be true.
“Then no one is going to mistake you for an expert, I would guess. “ Zack 108
Also, you kept asking me to defend my claims, which is a reasonable request, but you wouldn’t accept any of my examples. I frequently cited this very blog, & when that wasn’t good enough for you I cited other blogs, which also apparently wasn’t good enough.
“I never said that. There you go putting words in my mouth again. — Brooke What are the words, exactly, that I am supposed to have put into your mouth”?
“For some reason, you appear to think that’s not a realistic notion.” 130
“Do I only think you disagree with me, or do you in fact disagree with me?”
I have said repeatedly that I don’t know enough to know if I agree or disagree with you.
i was merely doing what you had asked in the previous entry — Brooke
When did I say you should complain about nitpickiness when you are asked to be more clear?
I never claimed to disbelieve in evolution, you just assumed I was — Brooke
As we have seen, your position regarding what you do and do not believe is a complicated and shifting one. However, please show where I said you disbelieve in evolution.
I should have said “do you only nitpick the people who you think disagree with you?,” or “have the audacity to question me,” [sorry, couldn’t resist some arrogant bravado here] — Brooke
It’s not clear what you’re trying to say here, except that apparently you hope to display some arrogance and bravado.
But you meant that as an insult, certainly not as a means of instruction or observation. — Brooke
If you get to decide how I mean the things I say, do I get to be the authority on your intentions?
The reason things have gotten so “muddled” as you say, is because you aren’t answering any of my questions & are making assumptions that may or may not be true. — Brooke
Give me an example of a question that you have directed to me that I haven’t answered.
As for making assumptions, you have admitted several times that you haven’t expressed your beliefs clearly, and in fact you admit frankly that you often don’t know what you believe. If someone makes an incorrect assumption about what you believe, the simple correction for that is to explain your beliefs with clarity and specificity.
Also, you kept asking me to defend my claims, which is a reasonable request… — Brooke
Right.
… but you wouldn’t accept any of my examples. — Brooke
Why should I accept poor examples? I asked you to be more specific in your examples. After a very, very long time, I’m still waiting for you to do that.
I frequently cited this very blog, & when that wasn’t good enough for you I cited other blogs, which also apparently wasn’t good enough. — Brooke
Citing the whole blog as an example is too general to mean very much, and I asked you to give specific examples from the blog to support your claims. I’m not sure why you think citing an entirely different blog is relevant to your claims about this blog.
Where did I ever attribute these words to you? These are my words describing your behavior. Who is putting words in the mouth of whom?
I have said repeatedly that I don’t know enough to know if I agree or disagree with you. — Brooke
And I have said repeatedly that you don’t seem to know what you think, and that your ideas have often been confused and unclearly expressed.
How come when I observe, correctly, that your ideas are wrong, or that you don’t know what you think or how to say it plainly when you do, it’s just me being insulting — and yet, when you make the same observations about yourself, it’s actually supposed to improve your credibility?
i almost forgot.
“What are you reading?”
Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin
*A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
In Defense of Secular Humanism Paul Kurtz
The Atheist Debator Handbook BC Johnson
The last two are mainly to get an idea of the thoughts behind evolution, not so much for explanations of evolutionary processes.
Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin — Brooke
I hope you haven’t been reading it very long, because it’s Origin of Species, not Origin of the Species.
The mistake about the title is a common one, and is usually expressed by people who don’t know what is in the book.
Even so, that’s a good choice and should finally offer us some opportunity for real discussion. Let me know when you’ve read Chapter One.
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson — Brooke
That’s a hilarious, very interesting book. Let me know when you’re ready to talk about it.
In Defense of Secular Humanism Paul Kurtz
The Atheist Debator Handbook BC Johnson — Brooke
I haven’t read either of them. Once you have, maybe you can tell me something I haven’t heard before. But why would you read either of them to get “the thoughts behind evolution”? Wouldn’t you want to read books by scientists for that?
“If you don’t know, why do you expect us to figure it out?”
I’m not expecting you to “figure it out,” I’d just like not to be treated as “the enemy” for daring to ask questions.
“I’m not sure why you think citing an entirely different blog is relevant to your claims about this blog.”
I have said before that my original claims were not specific to this blog, but to you folks in general, so it is only appropriate that I go to outside sources.
“And I have said repeatedly that you don’t seem to know what you think, and that your ideas have often been confused and unclearly expressed.”
I don’t think I’ve ever denied this.
“How come when I observe, correctly, that your ideas are wrong, or that you don’t know what you think or how to say it plainly when you do, it’s just me being insulting — and yet, when you make the same observations about yourself, it’s actually supposed to improve your credibility?”
I don’t think that my ideas are necessarily wrong. I am using this as a means to learn more. Believe me, I’m not trying to “improve my credibility.” I know, as far as you are concerned that would be impossible.
I’m not expecting you to “figure it out,” I’d just like not to be treated as “the enemy” for daring to ask questions. — Brooke
When you ask me questions, you’re being “daring”, but when I ask you questions, I’m treating you like “the enemy.” Are you sure your perspective on this is fair and objective?
I have said before that my original claims were not specific to this blog, but to you folks in general, so it is only appropriate that I go to outside sources. — Brooke
“You folks”? You mean atheists?
I don’t think I’ve ever denied this. — Brooke
Then take responsibility for it, instead of constantly trying to peddle the idea that people just resent you for being so darn daring and challenging.
I don’t think that my ideas are necessarily wrong. — Brooke
Possibly not. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But your track record is not encouraging.
I am using this as a means to learn more. — Brooke
Nothing wrong with that. When you ask strangers to help you learn, good manners compel you to remember that you are asking for a favor and to conduct yourself accordingly.
Believe me, I’m not trying to “improve my credibility.” –Brooke
Don’t you think this would be a worthy goal?
I know, as far as you are concerned that would be impossible. — Brooke
You know nothing of the sort. You could improve your credibility in any number of ways, some of which have been enumerated ad nauseam in this very venue.
“Are you sure your perspective on this is fair and objective?”
My questions aren’t asked with disrespect or hostility.
“You folks”? You mean atheists?”
I mean Darwinists generally; you & Austin specifically.
“You know nothing of the sort.”
I’ve read enough of these blogs to know that no amount of credibility will improve your opinion of me, because i am questioning you.
“It’s not clear what you’re trying to say here, except that apparently you hope to display some arrogance and bravado.”
You had said that in 122 i was back to saying that I disagreed with you, i was trying to be clearer.
My questions aren’t asked with disrespect or hostility. — Brooke
Brooke’s hit parade of respect and non-hostility:
If something is “obvious” you don’t need to defend it as maliciously as atheists tend to.
It seems to me that there is a lot of insecurity about Evolution; & rightly so.
I guess my main question is, if you guys are so confident, what are you so afraid of? You guys almost over-defend yoursleves, which to me hints of insecurity.
That probably means more to me than any of your empty explanations could ever do.
I doubted you would give me an answer. Oh well, can’t blame a girl for trying.
My original beef had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of your postion, but with the way you present your arguments, which are hate-laden & full of bravdo.
I am used to this sort of reaction from your kind.
it shows insecurity on your part, whether you realize it or not
you’ve avoided my original issue
& won’t answer any of my questions
i hold more stereotypes about atheists.
arrogant bravado is an attitude that comes through in your writing, not a particular style. & I have yet to be proven wrong on this.
do you only nitpick the people who disagree with you?
I’ve read enough of these blogs to know that no amount of credibility will improve your opinion of me, because i am questioning you. — Brooke
Seems like a very self-serving conclusion to me. If your mind is closed on the topic then I won’t waste further effort.
i’ve read through “Brooke’s Hit Parade of Respect & Non Hostility” [cute headline, by the way ;]], & fail to see any hostility or disrespect. Just legitimate questions & valid observations that I have yet to be refuted on.
“If your mind is closed on the topic then I won’t waste further effort”
My mind is no more closed than yours is about my observations.
i’ve read through “Brooke’s Hit Parade of Respect & Non Hostility” [cute headline, by the way ;]], & fail to see any hostility or disrespect. Just legitimate questions & valid observations that I have yet to be refuted on. — Brooke
Not your first failure of perception, and most likely not your last.
My mind is no more closed than yours is about my observations. — Brooke
You’re the one who declared that “no amount of credibility” is going to make any difference, not me.
“You’re the one who declared that “no amount of credibility” is going to make any difference, not me.”
would it?
would it? — Brooke
If you valued your own credibility and took action to improve it, then of course that would affect my opinion of you. The time I give to an attempt at dialogue with you springs from my belief that you have the capacity to improve and the potential to one day make an interesting contribution.
I am a busy person with many interesting ways to use my time. I don’t believe in a life beyond this one, so I am intentional about how I choose to spend the minutes of this life.
With that, I also have to tell you in honesty that your behavior so far has been tedious.
If your only ambition is to endlessly sing the same insipid song — “everyone here is mean, you hate me because I ask questions, la, la, la” — then you don’t need me for that, and I have better ways to occupy myself.
“If you valued your own credibility and took action to improve it”
the only way you would see me as “credible” is if i accepted your claims & believed as you did,
i value my own credibility too much to do so; i don’t see enough evidence in your favor to do that right now.
“you hate me because I ask questions…”
when did i ever say this? i don’t think that line was ever in my “song.”
“The time I give to an attempt at dialogue with you springs from my belief that you have the capacity to improve and the potential to one day make an interesting contribution.”
even if i don’t end up sharing your opinions?
the only way you would see me as “credible” is if i accepted your claims & believed as you did, — Brooke
If you are convinced this is the case, then you’re wasting your time here and so am I.
i value my own credibility too much to do so; i don’t see enough evidence in your favor to do that right now. — Brooke
Okee dokee then.
when did i ever say this? i don’t think that line was ever in my “song.” — Brooke
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.
even if i don’t end up sharing your opinions? — Brooke
Why possible importance could it have for me whether you do or do not share any of my opinions?
Sorry, in that last sentence, read “what” for “why.” My bad.
“If you are convinced this is the case, then you’re wasting your time here and so am I.”
I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
“I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.”
can you give me a direct quote? i’m not arrogant enough to suppose that anyone would hate me. that would take a lot of energy.
“What possible importance could it have for me whether you do or do not share any of my opinions?”
indeed, what importance is it at all?
I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary. — Brooke
We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. — Matthew 11:17
can you give me a direct quote? i’m not arrogant enough to suppose that anyone would hate me. that would take a lot of energy. — Brooke
My original complaint seems to have gotten lost by a lot of side issues.
My original beef had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of your postion, but with the way you present your arguments, which are hate-laden & full of bravdo. [just read over the responsive posts for an example]. — Brooke, entry 36, June 29, 2007
“No, but this is exactly the kind of thing i am talking about. If someone dares disagree, OR EVEN QUESTION you, you are so quick to crucify them intellectually.” — Brooke, entry 40, June 30, 2007
indeed, what importance is it at all? — Brooke
…It is a tale old by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. — Macbeth, Act V, Scene V
“My original beef had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of your postion, but with the way you present your arguments, which are hate-laden & full of bravdo. [just read over the responsive posts for an example]. — Brooke, entry 36, June 29, 2007
“No, but this is exactly the kind of thing i am talking about. If someone dares disagree, OR EVEN QUESTION you, you are so quick to crucify them intellectually.” — Brooke, entry 40, June 30, 2007
I was speaking of your attitudes toward any questioning here, not to me personally. Perhaps I mistook your comment: “everyone here is mean, you hate me…” to read the latter.
However, I already know your response Zack, “My answer is the same as it’s always been: Question away! Challenge to your heart’s content!” However, I don’t believe that your reasons are as noble as you claim: “The time I give to an attempt at dialogue with you springs from my belief that you have the capacity to improve and the potential to one day make an interesting contribution” 150. [just a guess].
But I do appreciate it, nonetheless.
“The mistake about the title is a common one, and is usually expressed by people who don’t know what is in the book”
Yeah, you’re right, only an ignorant person would put in an extraneous “the.”
“That’s a hilarious, very interesting book. Let me know when you’re ready to talk about it.”
I do enjoy his writing style: He is very funny & gives some great examples. Let me delve into it a bit more & I’ll be ready to discuss.
“But why would you read either of them to get “the thoughts behind evolution”? Wouldn’t you want to read books by scientists for that?”
I meant to say “the thoughts behind Darwinism,” which is an atheistic & humanistic doctrine.
some initial thoughts/questions i had whilst reading bryson’s book.
1. If there were, in fact several big bangs, would this indicate [much less evolved] life on other planets?
2. It would seem that something as complex as natural selection would require some sort of intelligence to weed out what works & what doesn’t. Natural selection, as I understand it [by modern or non-primitive standards], requires an assessment process [this would really work better if we…] & the cognition, not to mention the means to fix it. How could half-evolved organisms not only come to these conclusions, but then work to remedy them?
This would seem an enormous feat in the case of the creation of the universe. How would the universe “know” that gravity needs to be, say, “a trifle stronger”
Bryson quotes particle physicist Alan Guth as saying: “Although the creation of a universe might be very unlikely [Edward P.] Tryon emphasized that no one had counted the failed attempts.” pg.15.
Who was doing this attempting & how did they know they were failing?
some initial thoughts/questions i had whilst reading bryson’s book.
1. If there were, in fact several big bangs, would this indicate [much less evolved] life on other planets?
2. It would seem that something as complex as natural selection would require some sort of intelligence to weed out what works & what doesn’t. Natural selection, as I understand it [by modern or non-primitive standards], requires an assessment process [this would really work better if we…] & the cognition, not to mention the means to fix it. How could half-evolved organisms not only come to these conclusions, but then work to remedy them?
This would seem an enormous feat in the case of the creation of the universe. How would the universe “know” that gravity needs to be, say, “a trifle stronger”
Bryson quotes particle physicist Alan Guth as saying: “Although the creation of a universe might be very unlikely [Edward P.] Tryon emphasized that no one had counted the failed attempts.” pg.15.
Who [or what] was doing this attempting & how did they know they were failing?
I was speaking of your attitudes toward any questioning here, not to me personally. Perhaps I mistook your comment: “everyone here is mean, you hate me…” to read the latter. — Brooke
When you’re speaking for someone other than yourself, please say so at the time.
However, I already know your response Zack, “My answer is the same as it’s always been: Question away! Challenge to your heart’s content!” — Brooke
Ask your questions.
However, I don’t believe that your reasons are as noble as you claim: “The time I give to an attempt at dialogue with you springs from my belief that you have the capacity to improve and the potential to one day make an interesting contribution” 150. [just a guess]. — Brooke
It is your choice to make a guess, and your choice to make it cynical.
But I do appreciate it, nonetheless. — Brooke
Implying that another person has ignoble motives is a peculiar way to demonstrate appreciation.
Yeah, you’re right, only an ignorant person would put in an extraneous “the.”
– Brooke
Sometimes an extra word makes the difference between “lightning” and “lightning bug.”
The people who misplace the article in the title of Darwin’s book often do so because they mistakenly think it is about the origin of the human species.
I meant to say “the thoughts behind Darwinism,” which is an atheistic & humanistic doctrine. — Brooke
Natural selection is an atheistic and humanistic doctrine in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree as the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric model of the solar system.
If you are curious to know the thoughts behind Darwinism, the best source would be Darwin himself.
1. If there were, in fact several big bangs, would this indicate [much less evolved] life on other planets? — Brooke
I don’t see a connection between the two.
“The people who misplace the article in the title of Darwin’s book often do so because they mistakenly think it is about the origin of the human species.”
isn’t it about the origin of ALL species? which would include humans.
just a guess, not really far enough into it to say what its truly about
2. It would seem that something as complex as natural selection would require some sort of intelligence to weed out what works & what doesn’t. — Brooke
It’s called “natural selection” because the operation of ordinary events in nature do the selecting.
Natural selection, as I understand it [by modern or non-primitive standards], requires an assessment process [this would really work better if we…] & the cognition, not to mention the means to fix it. — Brooke
There is not assessment process or cognition involved, and organisms do not “fix” themselves.
Here is natural selection in a nutshell:
1) Organisms will reproduce until they reach the limit of their environment to support them.
2) When the population reaches the limit of the environment to support them, there will be competition for the scarce resources needed for survival.
3) Since organisms are not identical, some will be better suited to compete in a given environment than will other organisms.
4) The organisms with an advantage will generally leave more offspring than those who lack an advantage.
5) Over time, the advantageous characteristics will become more common and the disadvantageous ones will become less common.
“I don’t see a connection between the two.”
if big bangs just happened from time to time [as per guth & tryon], each producing universes with varying degrees of evolution, wouldn’t there be several “unfinished” universes in the cosmos?
isn’t it about the origin of ALL species? which would include humans.
just a guess, not really far enough into it to say what its truly about — Brooke
It is about the origin of species in general. However, Darwin avoided discussion of human origins or evolution in “Origin of Species.” He does turn to that topic in “The Descent of Man.”
How could half-evolved organisms not only come to these conclusions, but then work to remedy them? — Brooke
Evolving organisms don’t do either of those things. Natural selection is not a response by an organism to the environment, but an action by the environment upon an organism.
“Over time, the advantageous characteristics will become more common and the disadvantageous ones will become less common.”
Yes, less common, but the genes for these “disadvantageous characteristics” would still be present, so it would just be a toss up for where they would show themselves. thus we could still see any number of “unfit” species before they died off of natural causes.
This would seem an enormous feat in the case of the creation of the universe. How would the universe “know” that gravity needs to be, say, “a trifle stronger” — Brooke
In what sense would the universe or gravity be capable of having needs?
Who [or what] was doing this attempting & how did they know they were failing? — Brooke
No one and no way, as far as I can see.
“Natural selection is not a response by an organism to the environment, but an action by the environment upon an organism.”
How, exactly, does the environment take action to do this?
if big bangs just happened from time to time [as per guth & tryon], each producing universes with varying degrees of evolution, wouldn’t there be several “unfinished” universes in the cosmos? — Brooke
We don’t know. But if there are, I don’t see the connection between this possibility and the evolution of organisms within those universes.
Yes, less common, but the genes for these “disadvantageous characteristics” would still be present, so it would just be a toss up for where they would show themselves. — Brooke
They are present, yes. Over time, it becomes more and more difficult for recessive genes to express themselves in the phenotype. Eventually it becomes impossible. The odds that you will give birth to a reptile are zero.
thus we could still see any number of “unfit” species before they died off of natural causes. — Brooke
That’s right.
“We don’t know. But if there are, I don’t see the connection between this possibility and the evolution of organisms within those universes.”
within these varying degrees of evoution it would seem plausible that some other organisms might have evolved.
“The odds that you will give birth to a reptile are zero.”
that’s a relief!
“That’s right.”
why don’t we see any?
How, exactly, does the environment take action to do this? — Brooke
It’s important to understand that the environment doesn’t “take” action, in the sense of having intentions or an ultimate goal. However, it does act on the organisms within it.
If you step off of a cliff into the open air, gravity doesn’t decide to make you fall, or want to make you fall, or have a purpose for your fall — you just do fall, because your movements are controlled by the laws of gravity. Gravity is the name we give to the rules the universe has for how bodies will move.
why don’t we see any? — Brooke
Sad to say, we do, and at an increasing rate.
within these varying degrees of evoution it would seem plausible that some other organisms might have evolved. — Brooke
As far as we know, organisms can evolve in any universe where the laws of nature permit natural selection to operate.
“Sad to say, we do, and at an increasing rate.”
endangered species, yes. but i was speaking more in terms of transitional forms. it would seem still possible to see one or two of these still struggling to survive.
endangered species, yes. — Brooke
OK.
but i was speaking more in terms of transitional forms. — Brooke
All organisms are transitional between their ancestors and their descendants.
it would seem still possible to see one or two of these still struggling to survive. — Brooke
What qualities would identify a present species that is transitional to a future species?
“I don’t see the connection between this possibility and the evolution of organisms within those universes.”
i just read something that sort of answers my question. i just assumed that the big bang also had something to do with the origin of life.
but it seems, according to bryson that was the one gaping hole in the theory. no one could explain how we got here as the bang didn’t produce any of the necessary life forces-carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, et al.
a reptile with feathers, for instance
or even possibly my roach example you were so fond of [i know it's a
stretch, as it would probably have to go through the reptile phase
before going to bird]
or some sort of fish that could live on land yet still have gills &/or
fins from its previous residence underwater.
oops- post 43 was a response to
“What qualities would identify a present species that is transitional to a future species?”
but it seems, according to bryson that was the one gaping hole in the theory. — Brooke
Which theory? The Big Bang, or natural selection?
no one could explain how we got here as the bang didn’t produce any of the necessary life forces-carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, et al. — Brooke
It’s been a few years since I read the book, but I believe if you keep reading you will find a discussion of how stars forge heavy elements. Not everything that currently exists was formed in the Big Bang — far from it.
a reptile with feathers, for instance — Brooke
Most paleontologists seem to agree that chickens are descended from dinosaurs. If you look at the ends of your own fingers, you will see a modified claw. And, of course, some gilled fish can walk around on land and live out of water for a considerable time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
or even possibly my roach example you were so fond of [i know it’s a
stretch, as it would probably have to go through the reptile phase
before going to bird] — Brooke
No descendant of any cockroach alive today would ever evolve into a bird or a reptile, because evolution is a contingent process.
Suppose you could magically reverse time, go back to the moment when life began, and start things over from scratch. Reptiles and birds would most likely never come to exist at all. There might be other creatures that crawled or flew, but they wouldn’t be birds and they wouldn’t be reptiles.
“Which theory? The Big Bang, or natural selection?”
Big Bang
“Not everything that currently exists was formed in the Big Bang — far from it.”
not directly. i believe it was a few thousand years post bang before the first organism came into being. [is this correct?] however the capacity or potential for what exists must have been present.
thanks for the link. also, some frogs are both land & water dwellers. but how would a cold-blooded reptile evolve into a warm-blooded chicken?
Big Bang — Brooke
The Big Bang deals with the events in the early history of the universe. It is not intended to explain the origins or subsequent development of life.
not directly. i believe it was a few thousand years post bang before the first organism came into being. [is this correct?] — Brooke
The universe is much, much older than even the simplest single-celled organisms.
One common way to think about the time scales involved is to imagine the history of the universe as if it has been compressed to fit into a calendar year, with the Big Bang taking place on New Year’s Day.
On such a “Cosmic Calendar,” the first life appears in September, and the first humans show up two or three hours before midnight on December 31:
http://school.discovery.com/schooladventures/universe/itsawesome/cosmiccalendar/page2.html
but how would a cold-blooded reptile evolve into a warm-blooded chicken? — Brooke
The current thinking, to the best of my knowledge, is that dinosaurs were neither cold-blooded nor warm-blooded, but had a metabolism unique to their group. Here’s some information about it. Note in particular point 4:
http://www.wordsources.info/words-mod-dinosaur-info.html
To clarify, it’s not only chickens that are descended from dinosaurs. All birds are.
I used the chicken as an example because virtually everyone knows what a chicken looks like. Next time you see one, take a good look at its feet and legs and see if they don’t look rather lizardy to you.
And to clarify once more — dinosaurs were not lizards, but they were reptiles.
however the capacity or potential for what exists must have been present. — Brooke
Here’s another look at a “Cosmic Calendar.” You will see that the basic elements form about 3 seconds after the Big Bang, but stars and galaxies don’t appear until about 300,000,000 years later. The earliest life arises about 3,800,000,000 years after the Big Bang, and humans much later still.
http://visav.phys.uvic.ca/~babul/AstroCourses/P303/BB-slide.htm
I would be very remiss if i didn’t say that I think its very nice that you are taking the time to do this. You are an exception to my original post You certainly don’t have to, & not everyone would. I really do appreciate it.. You have a nice, clear way of explaining things.
“What qualities would identify a present species that is transitional to a future species?”
It would also seem that scientists or people would have encountered transitional forms with more physically obvious “transitions” that would make them look sort of mismatched.
I would be very remiss if i didn’t say that I think its very nice that you are taking the time to do this. You are an exception to my original post You certainly don’t have to, & not everyone would. I really do appreciate it.. You have a nice, clear way of explaining things. — Brooke
Thanks — I do my humble best
It would also seem that scientists or people would have encountered transitional forms with more physically obvious “transitions” that would make them look sort of mismatched. — Brooke
We can try to imagine how present-day species might evolve in the future, but we have to keep it mind that it is pure speculation. Organisms don’t evolve toward a goal — evolution is always about selecting the best fit for existing circumstances.
I found a quote from Henry Gee…
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That & the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause & effect in any valid way. [We call new fossil discoveries missing links] as if the chain of ancestry & descent were a real object for our contemplation, & not for what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human predjudices….To take a line of fossils & claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertation that carries the same validity as a bedtime story–amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Henry Gee, In search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 32, 113-117
“Thanks — I do my humble best ”
touche ;]
I found a quote from Henry Gee… — Brooke
You can always do worse than to read a senior editor of Nature. I haven’t read his book, but I understand it is an interesting introduction to cladistics.
yeah, i just found it. it is en route from amazon. i’m excited to read it.
thought this was priceless [from bryson's book]
“Sir Isaac replied immediately that it would be an [ellipse]. The Doctor, struck with awe & amazement, asked him how he knew it. ‘Why,’ saith he, ‘I have calculated it,’ whereupon Dr. Halley asked him for his calculation without farther delay, Sir Isaac looked among his papers but could not find it.”
Abraham DeMoivre, Newton confidant
it’s hard to believe that just the slightest difference in shape can cause that much difference. that’s the beauty (or tedium) of mathmatics, i guess.
it’s hard to believe that just the slightest difference in shape can cause that much difference. that’s the beauty (or tedium) of mathmatics, i guess. — Brooke
Yes, if the force is an inverse square then the orbit has to be an ellipse. The force of gravity declines by the square of the distance. For example, if you increase your distance from a given mass by four times, then the force gravity exerts on you is reduced by 16 times.
The inverse square law also applies to radiation, including visible light. You can use a photometer to measure the effect yourself, using an ordinary light bulb.
exactly. I don’t remember much about it, least of all where I even read it, but it seemed the scientists of that particular generation were trying in earnest to figure out why a circular orbit didn’t fit. then someone came up with the ellipse, & suddenly everything fit beautifully. I love it when that happens!!
Let’s talk some about the Cambrian Explosion. Darwin, himself, conceded that it basically turned out completely opposite of what he predicted. “The manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossilferous rocks…may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” [Origin of the Species, pg. 361]
this oversight notwithstanding, darwinists still fervently hold to this philosphy. why is this?
[Origin of the Species, pg. 361] — Brooke
No sentence resembling this one appears on page 361 of my copy of Origin of Species, nor on any other page near it. Pagination varies from publisher to publisher, and Darwin revised Origin from its first publication until his death. Can you tell me in what chapter you found it?
this oversight notwithstanding, darwinists still fervently hold to this philosphy. why is this? — Brooke
What philosophy do you mean?
in chapter 10 about two pages under the “sudden appearance of groups” heading.
“What philosophy do you mean?”
darwinism. [sorry, looking at that sentence now, that does seem a bit unclear]
i did just read austin’s article, THE FOSSIL RECORD, which did clear up some things. however, it still just seems to be a major oversight, which wouldn’t seem to match up to a theory that is also called fact. it seems stranger still that you are willing to accept this as it requires a certain “faith” to believe it.
in chapter 10 about two pages under the “sudden appearance of groups” heading. — Brooke
Still not finding it. Neither have I found a subheading in Chapter 10 called “sudden appearance of groups.” My printed copy is the first edition, published in 1859. Six editions were published during Darwin’s lifetime.
Origin of Species can be found in its entirety online, and I’ve looked through several sites without finding the line that you cite or that subheading.
It would facilitate discussion if you could find an edition online that contains your citation and link to it here.
darwinism. –Brooke
Speaking of “Darwinist philosophy” is peculiar in at least a couple of ways.
First, why speak of “Darwinism” or “Darwinist philosophy” rather than natural selection or evolution?
It is as if we were discussing right triangles and instead of geometry you preferred to call it “Pythagoreanism,” or “Pythagoreanist philosophy.” It wouldn’t be exactly wrong, but it would be an odd way to talk about it.
Second, what in the world would “Darwinist philosophy” be? If you only mean natural selection, then why not simply say so? If you mean to imply that “Darwinist philosophy” means something more than natural selection, then you have to explain what you have in mind before discussion is really possible.
http://books.google.com/books?id=TCwLAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA359&dq=charles+darwin+origin+of+species+cambrian+explosion&ei=_pK_RtHUL4b07gL31v2dAQ
however, it still just seems to be a major oversight, which wouldn’t seem to match up to a theory that is also called fact. — Brooke
An oversight would be if Darwin had published Origin with no discussion of instances of sudden speciation. And then, after the book came out, people said, “Hey! Darwin! What about sudden speciation? Doesn’t that blow a big hole in your theory?” And Darwin slapped his forehead and said, “D’oh!” in the manner of Homer Simpson.
Instead, Darwin recognized that sudden speciation posed an important challenge to his view of natural selection. He offered his own ideas about why the fossil record might look the way it does, and he invited independent invetstigation of the question by his scientific peers.
One fact to keep in mind is that Origin was the start of a conversation about natural selection, not the last word on it.
In the years since Orgin appeared, scientists have taken up Darwin’s challenge. You can read a bit about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
And here is a discussion of the Cambrian explosion by Keith Miller at Kansas State University. It may be of particular interest to you because Miller is an evangelical Christian:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=TCwLAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA359&dq=charles+darwin+origin+of+species+cambrian+explosion&ei=_pK_RtHUL4b07gL31v2dAQ — Brooke
Thanks — One can hardly complain about citing the Harvard Classics. I’m looking it over right now.
Looking at page 361 of the link you give, even allowing for the ellipses, I do not find a sentence that reads, “The manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossilferous rocks…may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
The sentence I see that most resembles yours is, “The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” It begins the first full paragraph on page 361. Is that the sentence you mean to quote, or do I need to keep looking?
Second, what in the world would “Darwinist philosophy” be? If you only mean natural selection, then why not simply say so? If you mean to imply that “Darwinist philosophy” means something more than natural selection, then you have to explain what you have in mind before discussion is really possible.
speciation by natural selection
“the sentence I see that most resembles yours is, “The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” It begins the first full paragraph on page 361. Is that the sentence you mean to quote, or do I need to keep looking?”
no that was the last part of the quote, the first part of the quote is on 359
speciation by natural selection — Brooke
I’m not connecting the dots. What is it about the Cambrian explosion that you feel deals a death blow to the notion of speciation by natural selection?
yes, that is the sentence & no, you don’t need to keep looking
Looking at page 359, I still do not see such a sentence. Can you tell me on what line of page 359 it appears?
OK, excellent, I think I can respond to your question now.
All Darwin is saying in that sentence is, “Here’s a major question that could really blow the doors off of my theory. Everyone needs to scrutinize it very carefully.”
In the very next sentence, Darwin says, “To show it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis.” Which means, “I think we may eventually find an explanation for this, and now I’m going to tell you what I think we may find.”
That’s the way science is supposed to operate. I don’t see the big deal.
it turned darwin’s tree of life upside down.
the cambrian fossil record doesn’t start with one or two species that evolved, but rather, lots of animals that appear fully formed.
not sure if this would totally eliminate the notion of speciation by natural selectiion, but darwin, himself said that it was a blow
it turned darwin’s tree of life upside down. — Brooke
To upend Darwin’s “tree of life” model, the Cambrian fossils would need to have started with multitudes of species in the distant past and evolved toward only a handful of species today. Needless to say, that’s not what it shows.
the cambrian fossil record doesn’t start with one or two species that evolved, but rather, lots of animals that appear fully formed. — Brooke
If true, that would argue against extremely gradual speciation, not against speciation per se. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have argued that that is exactly what the Cambrian explosion implies. The resulting theory is called punctuated equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Other scientists argue that speciation in the Cambrian is simply not as sudden as all that.
not sure if this would totally eliminate the notion of speciation by natural selectiion, but darwin, himself said that it was a blow — Brooke
He said it would be a blow to his idea of gradual speciation if no explanation was forthcoming after careful study.
As I noted above, in the very next sentence, he begins suggesting possible explanations. And remember, once again, that this is Darwin speaking at the introduction of the idea of natural selection to the scientific community.
He’s not saying the Cambrian explosion murders natural selection — he’s saying that it has the potential to murder his idea that speciation is gradual.
Some scientists think that the answer is that speciation is relatively sudden — that it is not as gradual as Darwin thought. Other scientists argue that speciation is, indeed, gradual, and that the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion is largely illusory.
Notice that no scientists are arguing about whether speciation occurs by natural selection. Their argument is about the pace at which it occurs.
“All Darwin is saying in that sentence is, “Here’s a major question that could really blow the doors off of my theory. Everyone needs to scrutinize it very carefully.”
it’s nice to hear fallibilty associated with darwin. this is quite different than what i am used to. i’m used to hearing the absolute INfallibility of darwin.
“And Darwin slapped his forehead and said, “D’oh!” in the manner of Homer Simpson.”
that’s a funny image. kind of like sir edmind halley trying to correspond the age of the universe with seasalt accumilation in the ocean. [pg 75]
it’s nice to hear fallibilty associated with darwin. this is quite different than what i am used to. i’m used to hearing the absolute INfallibility of darwin. — Brooke
Modifying theories in the face of new evidence is at the heart of the scientific method.
Darwin recognized that his theory would need to be rigorously tested, which is why he constantly suggested areas — such as the Cambrian explosion — that needed scrutiny.
It is precisely because Darwin’s theory has been so carefully investigated and so thoroughly tested by so many thousands of scientists over the past 148 years that we can today speak with great confidence of evolution and natural selection as facts of the natural world.
kind of like sir edmind halley trying to correspond the age of the universe with seasalt accumilation in the ocean. [pg 75]
— Brooke
Halley’s idea seems naive today, but we have the benefit of hindsight and improved data. It’s not a crime to be wrong. However, it is an intellectual crime to refuse to admit error in the face of new or better evidence.
And he did discover that nice comet.
“It’s not a crime to be wrong”
indeed.
no, what i was laughing about was that he had this great idea, everyone was like, “yeah… we don’t know how to do that…” [in bill lumberg style, of course]
there’s a nice pub named after him too.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2001919_make-bill-lumbergh-costume.html
thanks! i think i laughed outloud for about 10 minutes when i saw this. that’s awesome!
now i know how to spell his name.
though, wasn’t it you who said that this blog was not for my amusement?? ;]
“Nod and smile when “listening”; follow up with either “Um … yahh …” or “I’m gonna have to go ahead and … disagree with you there”, but always make sure to use mild, circular hand motions stemming from the arm holding the coffee mug.”
i already do this at work.
but since we are in danger of being extemely off topic, i will pose another question…
since birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, wouldn’t that be a sort of “backwards” evolving?
when i think of evolving, i think bigger & better.
how exactly would the speciation of a dinosaur to a bird go?
oops, almost missed this…
“Natural selection is an atheistic and humanistic doctrine in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree as the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric model of the solar system.” [post 23-i think the numbers got messed up somewhere a long the way]
natural selection is neither an atheistic or humanistic doctrine. when it’s put in cahoots with speciation, is when it becomes so.
“Second, what in the world would “Darwinist philosophy” be? If you only mean natural selection, then why not simply say so? If you mean to imply that “Darwinist philosophy” means something more than natural selection, then you have to explain what you have in mind before discussion is really possible.”
those terms mean very different things to you & me [as, i'm sure you would agree the term "creation" does]. i believe in evolution [at least on a micro-scale] & i believe in natural selection, but i think a designer was invloved. so even if i said that i believed in speciation by natural selection, it would mean something completely different than what you mean when you say it.
i am still in the process of reviewing your cambrian explosion data…
“Notice that no scientists are arguing about whether speciation occurs by natural selection. ”
i think my problem is with speciation itself.
because if it did, in fact happen, it could only happen by natural selection.
since birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, wouldn’t that be a sort of “backwards” evolving? — Brooke
In what sense would it be backward?
when i think of evolving, i think bigger & better. — Brooke
Dinosaurs were the most successful animals of their time, probably of any time, in the sense that they filled every ecological niche. There were very big ones and very small ones, and every size in between.
Also, nature doesn’t select for larger size in all or even most instances. The story goes that the biologist J.B.S. Haldane was once asked if his study of nature had revealed anything about the mind of God. Haldane famously replied, “He has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Twenty percent of all species alive on Earth today are beetles.
And as for “better,” the only meaningful use of “better” in natural selection is in describing an organism’s success in its environment. A tiny creature that reproduces has a better advantage than a big creature that doesn’t. In terms of reproductive success, the “best” organisms are now, have always been, and will always be bacteria.
how exactly would the speciation of a dinosaur to a bird go? — Brooke
The Mistaken Extinction. Dinosaur
Evolution and the Origin of Birds.-Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe. 1997. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York. xiv + 332 pp., numerous text illustrations. ISBN 07167-2994-X. $34.95.
natural selection is neither an atheistic or humanistic doctrine. — Brooke
No disagreement there.
when it’s put in cahoots with speciation, is when it becomes so. — Brooke
Natural selection is about nothing but speciation. That’s why Darwin’s book is called Origin of Species.
those terms mean very different things to you & me [as, i’m sure you would agree the term “creation” does]. i believe in evolution [at least on a micro-scale] & i believe in natural selection, but i think a designer was invloved. so even if i said that i believed in speciation by natural selection, it would mean something completely different than what you mean when you say it. — Brooke
Men and women of good will can agree on the physics of light refraction and still disagree on the question of whether rainbows represent a covenant between God and man.
The honest area of disagreement would not center on the question of how light is refracted, but on if some instances of light refraction have a particular religious significance.
because if it did, in fact happen, it could only happen by natural selection. — Brooke
I know of no other way.
“Some scientists think that the answer is that speciation is relatively sudden — that it is not as gradual as Darwin thought.” [233]
if it were relatively sudden, we would certainly see transitional forms, no?
“Other scientists argue that speciation is, indeed, gradual, and that the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion is largely illusory.”
i’m not doubting the possiblity of this, what might cause such an illusion? & how would so many people be fooled by it?
if it were relatively sudden, we would certainly see transitional forms, no? — Brooke
The less time it takes for an event to occur, the less likely you are to observe it in progress.
i’m not doubting the possiblity of this, what might cause such an illusion? & how would so many people be fooled by it? — Brooke
It’s not so much a matter of being fooled as it is differing views about how the Cambrian data should be read.
This is discussed in Origin of Species and in the links given previously about the Cambrian explosion.
“The less time it takes for an event to occur, the less likely you are to observe it in progress.”
i think i understand what you are saying, but, even so, since it is not taking millions of years for subtle changes to occur, wouldn’t it have been/be more common to see forms in transition even in everyday life?
if i started noticing even the slightest change on myself, i think i’d be more than a little concerned.
“Some Proterozoic fossils have been interpreted as coprolites (fossilized faeces),”
ewwwwww!!!
” and excreting solid waste requires a through-gut; others have been interpreted as tunnels or burrows, which requires a muscular body with a tube-like shape (which also suggests a through-gut).[11]”
[wikkipedia/cambrian explosion]
it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it ;]
“While the general rapidity of the Cambrian explosion thus seems to remain a reality, attempts have been made to downplay the “amount” of evolution that was required to generate the taxa actually seen in the Cambrian…” *
why?
“…Thus, the view that all modern phyla essentially suddenly appear at the base of the Cambrian has come under assault.”
[*wikkipedia/cambrian explosion]
why would this be such a problem?
i think i understand what you are saying, but, even so, since it is not taking millions of years for subtle changes to occur, wouldn’t it have been/be more common to see forms in transition even in everyday life? — Brooke
I don’t see how that would follow.
if i started noticing even the slightest change on myself, i think i’d be more than a little concerned. — Brooke
X-Men aside, any mutations you’re ever going to have, you already have at the time of birth. This is true even if the mutation doesn’t express itself in the phenotype until later in the life of the organism.
“Some Proterozoic fossils have been interpreted as coprolites (fossilized faeces),” — Brooke
Heh.
Just about any natural history museum has a few of these on display.
why would this be such a problem? — Brooke
Scientists often look at the same data set and draw different conclusions. The differences are debated, and most of the time one view or the other eventually prevails.
Often new evidence will emerge and help settle the question, but sometimes, as with Einstein, someone shows up with an explanation that fits the known facts better than competing ideas.
“I don’t see how that would follow.”
If changes were happening faster, even on a gradual level, shouldn’t we be able to see the transformations as they happened. it would seem easier to track. take a standard pet iguana. wouldn’t it be easier to notice after a few years if he started to sprout wing-like formations?
“X-Men aside, any mutations you’re ever going to have, you already have at the time of birth.”
ok
“This is true even if the mutation doesn’t express itself in the phenotype until later in the life of the organism.”
that’s what i’d be concerned about: the mutation expressing itself later in life.
wouldn’t it be easier to notice after a few years if he started to sprout wing-like formations? — Brooke
When scientists talk about a species evolving “suddenly,” they generally mean it emerged over millions of years, rather than tens of millison.
that’s what i’d be concerned about: the mutation expressing itself later in life. — Brooke
What I mean by that is that not all mutations are apparent at the time of birth. Just about everyone agrees, for example, that cancer has a genetic component. You don’t have to be born with cancer in order to have a genetic disposition to cancer that emerges in middle age.
“What I mean by that is that not all mutations are apparent at the time of birth. Just about everyone agrees, for example, that cancer has a genetic component. You don’t have to be born with cancer in order to have a genetic disposition to cancer that emerges in middle age.”
& i thought i just had wrinkles to worry about.
who knows what kinds of mutations are in my history.
who knows what kinds of mutations are in my history. — Brooke
From the point of view of an egg, a hen is just a way to make another egg.
One reason why organisms get so many ailments later in life is that natural selection doesn’t care much what happens to you once you’re past reproductive age.
When scientists talk about a species evolving “suddenly,” they generally mean it emerged over millions of years, rather than tens of millison.”
so, my iguana could conceivably start speciating they’ve surely existed long enough.
“From the point of view of an egg, a hen is just a way to make another egg.”
not a very enlightened position
so, my iguana could conceivably start speciating they’ve surely existed long enough. — Brooke
He/she may be right in the middle of speciating. We wouldn’t know.
not a very enlightened position — Brooke
You might think otherwise, if you were an egg.
“What I mean by that is that not all mutations are apparent at the time of birth. Just about everyone agrees, for example, that cancer has a genetic component. You don’t have to be born with cancer in order to have a genetic disposition to cancer that emerges in middle age.”
so if i were born with some sort of physical mutation that hints of speciation, it could show up when i was much older?
“He/she may be right in the middle of speciating. We wouldn’t know.”
but, the question remains, we should be seeing something. maybe they could put a scientist on “speciation patrol,” for this purpose. ;] could this be my job?
so if i were born with some sort of physical mutation that hints of speciation, it could show up when i was much older? — Brooke
If you have a mutated gene, it could manifest itself late in your development.
Speciation doesn’t happen to individuals, only to populations.
but, the question remains, we should be seeing something. — Brooke
The point is, we could be and we would have no way to know it. Natural selection is generally only apparent in hindsight.
“Speciation doesn’t happen to individuals, only to populations.”
but individuals make up populations
“The point is, we could be and we would have no way to know it. Natural selection is generally only apparent in hindsight”
why? i know it’s gradual, but that shouldn’t stop it from being visable.
why? i know it’s gradual, but that shouldn’t stop it from being visable. — Brooke
It is visible, but you usually don’t know that what you’re seeing is speciation until later events put it in context.
“it is visible, but you usually don’t know that what you’re seeing is speciation until later events put it in context.”
so we could be speciating ourselves & not realize it?
so we could be speciating ourselves & not realize it? — Brooke
Not you and I as individuals, but human beings as a group could be, sure.
i don’t understand that.
you & i are componants of the group, which is changing while we are not
you & i are componants of the group, which is changing while we are not — Brooke
You and I as individuals could have a given mutation, but it’s not speciation until the mutation propagates through the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics#Mendelian_and_classical_genetics
“You and I as individuals could have a given mutation, but it’s not speciation until the mutation propagates through the population.”
so speciation could only happen when i pass my mutation on to my offspring?
a mutation could have been passed on to me by my parents & wait until much later to show itself?
am i correct so far?
so speciation could only happen when i pass my mutation on to my offspring? — Brooke
Maybe this will help clear things up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
a mutation could have been passed on to me by my parents & wait until much later to show itself? — Brooke
A genetic component is known or suspected in many ailments that typically manifest themselves relatively late in the development of an individual.
Multiple sclerosis would be one example. Prostate cancer is another.
“A genetic component is known or suspected in many ailments that typically manifest themselves relatively late in the development of an individual.”
while this is true of ailments; am i correct in understanding that this is not so much true in terms of growing wings & other physical mutations
i just received Evolution Wars, by Michael Ruse today in the mail. it sounds right up my alley. i look forward to reading & discussing, if you are game.
am i correct in understanding that this is not so much true in terms of growing wings & other physical mutations — Brooke
You had asked about mutations that manifest in later development, so I gave a couple of examples that came to mind.
There are many others. Most of the physical changes that we associate with old age are genetically driven — male pattern baldness, a loss of skin elasticity, glaucoma, etc.
All of these are real physical changes. We don’t think of them as remarkable because we see them every day.
On the other end of the age spectrum, language acquisition is another developmental change that is driven by genetics.
Some examples that might be closer to what you have in mind with your question about wings might be catepillars into butterflies and tadpoles into frogs.
i just received Evolution Wars, by Michael Ruse today in the mail. it sounds right up my alley. i look forward to reading & discussing, if you are game. — Brooke
I have all the books I can read right now, but I will be happy offer opinions in my ignorance.
By reputation it is a good book.
“Some examples that might be closer to what you have in mind with your question about wings might be catepillars into butterflies and tadpoles into frogs.”
would this be considered speciation as well as mutation?
“I have all the books I can read right now, but I will be happy offer opinions in my ignorance.”
it does not go unappreciated ;]
what all are you reading?
“One must accept that there are long periods of relatively little evolutionary change–periods of equilibrium, or stasis–broken, or punctuated, by rapid moves from one form to another.” ruse, 235
o.k.
‘If new species arise very rapidly in small. peripherally isolated loval populations, then the great expectation of insensibly graded fossil sequences is a chimera.” [ibid]
this makes me laugh, i thought chimeras or hermaphrodites were only in porn movies.
i should probably put the above quote in context for you. this is elliot & gould’s 1972 research.
“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 x 10 [to the 18th power] joules of potential energy–enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it & really wished to make a point…” [bryson, 122]
how do you liberate this energy?
would this be considered speciation as well as mutation? — Brooke
The defining quality of a species it that its members are able to interbreed.
In Greek mythology, Chimera was the daughter of Typhon. She was made up of parts from many different animals, so today we sometimes speak of a chimera to mean an organism with components from multiple species. A tree with a grafted limb would be an example.
In common conversation, the term chimera is also used to mean that a thing is imaginary.
how do you liberate this energy? — Brooke
Using ordinary chemical or mechanical processes, you can’t. A nuclear explosion would liberate part of it.
“In common conversation, the term chimera is also used to mean that a thing is imaginary”
let that be a lesson to me to get my contexts right ;]
“the defining quality of a species it that its members are able to interbreed.”
frogs can breed with other frogs & butterflies can breed with other butterflies. is this what you are mean?
let that be a lesson to me to get my contexts right ;] — Brooke
True — a mixup could lead to awkard moments when the neighbors come over for movie night
frogs can breed with other frogs & butterflies can breed with other butterflies. is this what you are mean? — Brooke
Yes.
“frogs can breed with other frogs & butterflies can breed with other butterflies. is this what you are mean? — Brooke
Yes.”
so it is speciation as well as mutation?
“True — a mixup could lead to awkard moments when the neighbors come over for movie night ”
not if we were watching Clerks ;]
so it is speciation as well as mutation? — Brooke
Yes. Speciation always requires mutation, but mutation doesn’t alway lead to speciation.
“Yes. Speciation always requires mutation, but mutation doesn’t alway lead to speciation.”
that makes sense.
let me make sure i’m on track:
speciation only happens to populations in that it only occurs during propagation.
speciation always requires a mutation but a mutation is not necessarily speciation.
is this correct?
speciation only happens to populations in that it only occurs during propagation. — Brooke
A mutation has to spread through the population before it can become speciation, and the only way for that to happen is by the mutated individual having offspring.
To use an example, suppose there is a herd of four-legged animals that lives by eating the leaves from the trees.
Purely by chance, some of these animals will have slightly longer legs or longer necks than the others. This advantage will permit them to reach leaves that are higher on the tree — leaves that the others in their herd can’t reach.
In good times, there are leaves enough for everyone. Both the longer-necked and the shorter-necked beasts will have plenty to eat. They will live out their natural life spans and both long-necked and short-necked animals will have offspring to carry their genes to the next generation.
But eventually hard times will come. They always do. There is a drought, or a blight destroys many of the trees, or what have you.
Now there are more animals that need to eat leaves than there are leaves to eat. In such a circumstance, the animals with longer necks and longer legs will be able to reach food when the others cannot. The short-necked, short-legged animals will starve to death, and only the long-necked, long-legged creatures will live to have offspring. If this sort of thing goes on long enough, the genes for short necks and short legs will eventually disappear from the population, and only long-legged and long-necked animals will exist.
Over very long periods of time, changes such as these accumulate until the animal has become quite a different creature. That is how natural selection changes one species into another.
speciation always requires a mutation but a mutation is not necessarily speciation.
is this correct? — Brooke
Yes, but keep in mind that the mutation doesn’t have to be something dramatic, like sprouting wings. It can be just an extra quarter-inch of height, or blue eyes rather than brown, or an even more minor change.
“Yes, but keep in mind that the mutation doesn’t have to be something dramatic, like sprouting wings…”
sorry, this was unclear. when i mentioned an iguana “sprouting wings” i didn’ t mean that one day wings would just suddenly appear on it, but that perhaps we would see a small lump or something which would be the beginnings of said wing. this would be possible, no?
“It can be just an extra quarter-inch of height, or blue eyes rather than brown, or an even more minor change.”
how do these “survival issues” [not sure if that's the right term] play out with humans where height is pretty irrelevant in the obtaining of food?
there has been & is a great diversity of eye colors even among the same species. would this indicate a mutaion that does not lead to speciation? how does eye color play into survival [besides brown eyed girls getting more songs written about them]?
“sorry, this was unclear. when i mentioned an iguana “sprouting wings” i didn’ t mean that one day wings would just suddenly appear on it, but that perhaps we would see a small lump or something which would be the beginnings of said wing. this would be possible, no?”
i see that this is still unclear. one day we would perhaps see a lump & its child would have a larger lump & their child would have an even larger lump, etc. etc.
what i meant was that we should be able to see changes no matter how minor.
& what i understand you to say is that we may see them but that we wouldn’t necessarily understand it as speciation until we see it in hindsight. is this correct?
but even if we don’t immediately connect the changes with mutations or speciation, we would still notice them, no?
does this make sense or am i digging myself deeper & deeper into the hole of unclarity?
How cool is this??
“Every atom you posess has almost certainly passed through several stars & had been part of millions of organisms on it’s way to becomming you. We are each so atomically numerous & so vigorously recycled at death that a significant number of our atoms–up to a billion for each of us, it has been suggested–probably once belonged to Shakespere.
A billion more each came from Buddah & Genghis Khan & Beethoven, & any other historical figure you care to name.” although “(The personages have to be historical, apparently, as it takes the atoms some decades to become thoroughly redistributed; however much as you may wish it, you are not yet one with Elvis Presley.)” ;] [Bryson, 114]
how do these “survival issues” [not sure if that’s the right term] play out with humans where height is pretty irrelevant in the obtaining of food? — Brooke
Height was just one example of variation that could be preserved by natural selection. Almost any quality an organism has could be selected, given the right environmental pressures.
Even so, it’s worth remembering that greater height would have been a selective advantage for most of the history of the human species. There is some evidence that it still is. Most CEOs of large corporations are taller than the average person.
one day we would perhaps see a lump & its child would have a larger lump & their child would have an even larger lump, etc. etc. — Brooke
Something like that could happen, but the lump itself would have to provide a selective advantage in the present world of the organism. Evolution doesn’t start out with a wing in mind and grow the lump toward that goal.
what i understand you to say is that we may see them but that we wouldn’t necessarily understand it as speciation until we see it in hindsight. is this correct? — Brooke
That’s right. You can’t know in advance that a particular mutation is going to take over a population.
but even if we don’t immediately connect the changes with mutations or speciation, we would still notice them, no? — Brooke
We might, if we’re paying attention. But all kinds of variation are occurring all the time, and we don’t have any sure way of knowing which ones will confer an advantage to an organism. We can make guesses, but we live in a complicated biosphere.
How cool is this?? — Brooke
It’s way cool. Provides a new perspective on the Eucharist, doesn’t it?
What are you reading? — Brooke
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780312347291&itm=1
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780345487131&itm=1
http://loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=25
Everything else is work-related.
“Most CEOs of large corporations are taller than the average person.”
i’m sure that’s just coincidence ;]
“Evolution doesn’t start out with a wing in mind and grow the lump toward that goal.”
Would that be natural selection’s job?
“It’s way cool. Provides a new perspective on the Eucharist, doesn’t it?”
who knew there actually was something to the whole transubstansiatiation thing?
“transubstantiation”
i lost my place in this word & misspelled it. long day…
so you read a lot of global/environmental stuff with some raymond chandler to mix it up. very cool.
i just received my Henry Gee book, In Search of Deep Time.
Would that be natural selection’s job? — Brooke
Natural selection is the engine that powers evolution. Neither of them has a goal.
i lost my place in this word & misspelled it. long day… — Brooke,/b>
I would never nitpick anyway
” I would never nitpick anyway”
You? Never ;]
p.s. i like your smilies better than mine. how do you do them?
i like your smilies better than mine. how do you do them? — Brooke
; – ) but without the spaces in-between
just testing…
“‘Bohr once commented that a person who wasn’t outraged on first hearing about quantum theory didn’t understand what had been said.’ Heisenberg, when asked how one could envision an atom, replied: ‘Don’t try.’” [Bryson 144-155]
Funny! I like Bryson’s commentaries on the different scientists lives. Even the most brilliant scientists have their own sets of amusing foibles ;]
[as evidenced by my test, the smiley thing didn't work out for me]
this is cool:
“Perhaps the most arresting of quantum improbablities is the idea …that the subatomic particles in certain pairs, even when separated by the most considerable distances, can each instantly ‘know” what the other is doing.”
& even cooler:
“Particle have a quality known as spin &, according to quantum theory, the moment you determine the spin of one particle, it’s sister particle, no matter how distant away will immediately begin spinning in the opposite direction & at the same rate.”
just like a sister ;]
when i asked about Darwinism’s accounting for irreducibly complex systems, Austin shrugged it off by saying that it was something that Michael Behe “made up,” but the question remains how does Darwinism account for things like blood clotting or the light-sensitive spot in the eye?
“Perhaps the most arresting of quantum improbablities is the idea …that the subatomic particles in certain pairs, even when separated by the most considerable distances, can each instantly ‘know” what the other is doing.” — Brooke
J.B.S. Haldane once said that the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it’s queerer that we can imagine. I think he’s right.
when i asked about Darwinism’s accounting for irreducibly complex systems, Austin shrugged it off by saying that it was something that Michael Behe “made up,” but the question remains how does Darwinism account for things like blood clotting or the light-sensitive spot in the eye? — Brooke
Darwin addresses your question in Chapter VI, “Difficulties on Theory.” See the section titled, “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.” He cites the eye as a specific example.
“J.B.S. Haldane once said that the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it’s queerer that we can imagine. I think he’s right.”
indeed.
“Darwin addresses your question in Chapter VI, “Difficulties on Theory.” See the section titled, “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.” He cites the eye as a specific example.”
cool. i’ll check it out…
where exactly in the evolutionary process does a lobster become a “rock lobster” ? [just curious ;]]
“But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?…I will here only state that I believe the answer lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed…” http://books.google.com/books?id=TCwLAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA359&dq=charles+darwin+origin+of+species+cambrian+explosion&ei=_pK_RtHUL4b07gL31v2dAQ
It must just be me, but this seems like a huge cop out. ["No we can't find the telltale evidence necessary for this theory, so it must be due to bad recordkeeping...yeah, that's it, the records were faulty]
although, to be fair, I have not yet read the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record. that’s just how it strikes me now.
where exactly in the evolutionary process does a lobster become a “rock lobster” ?
Just after the “big band lobster” and just before the “disco lobster.”
p.s. the last quote was found on page 179 of that link
“Just after the “big band lobster” and just before the “disco lobster.””
wouldn’t it have been post disco lobster. more like “new wave” lobster?
It must just be me, but this seems like a huge cop out. [”No we can’t find the telltale evidence necessary for this theory, so it must be due to bad recordkeeping…yeah, that’s it, the records were faulty] — Brooke
It’s not surprising that we don’t find fossils of everything that might interest us. The amazing thing is that we ever find one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization
wouldn’t it have been post disco lobster. more like “new wave” lobster? — Brooke
Maybe it was not a lobster at all, but a Beatle.
“Maybe it was not a lobster at all, but a Beatle.”
Given both God’s “inordinate fondness for [beatles],” & the psychedelic phase of the beatles influencing [or evolving into] groups like the b-52s, I think you might be onto something ;]
fossils are so rare, yet Darwinists base most of their facts on said fossil record. How can you piece together with much certainty the forms based on these fossils? & in doing so, even be able to tell what’s related to what?
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record & expect to emperically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, & continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth Nelson, in his Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History” 1969 [which is found in Williams & Ebach's "The Reform of Palaeontology & the Rise of Biography..." journal of Biogeography 31 [2004] 685-712,709]
fossils are so rare, yet Darwinists base most of their facts on said fossil record. — Brooke
Diamonds are rare, too, but that doesn’t mean we have nothing useful or reliable to say about the nature of diamonds.
Further, fossils are only one line of evidence for natural selection.
How can you piece together with much certainty the forms based on these fossils? & in doing so, even be able to tell what’s related to what? — Brooke
Very carefully, and with lots and lots of hard work. Obviously, scientists base their conclusions on evidence that is available. In this respect, fossils are no different than any other kind of physical evidence in science.
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record & expect to emperically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, & continues to be, a pernicious illusion.” — Brooke
Yes, I’ve seen that statement before. Most paleontologists seem to think that you can discern such relationships, and I don’t know what makes Nelson say it’s not possible. I wonder if he modified his views any in the decades after 1969?
still musing an earlier post…
“No descendant of any cockroach alive today would ever evolve into a bird or a reptile” [zack 189]
i don’t know phases.
“…because evolution is a contingent process.” [zack 189]
how then [given a few exceptions, of course] does it account for species that are so consistantly uniform?
“Suppose you could magically reverse time, go back to the moment when life began, and start things over from scratch. Reptiles and birds would most likely never come to exist at all.”
Zack [post 189]
why?
There might be other creatures that crawled or flew, but they wouldn’t be birds and they wouldn’t be reptiles.”
[Zack post 189]
how could this be? it is hard to imagine a world without birds & reptiles. let’s get rid of insects instead ;]
“Further, fossils are only one line of evidence for natural selection.”
yes, darwin thought embryos to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory.[origin...xiv, descent of man, i]
von baer’s law became known as “von baer’s law, even though von baer himself was not totally on board with it. yet in what was considered “one of the ironies of nineteenth century biology,” by fredrick churchill, von baer’s view “was confounded with & then transformed into” what darwinists believe so fervantly today. [the rise of classical descriptive embryology 1-29]
further, ernst haeckle’s famous embryo chart has been exposed & re-exposed as fraudulent. yet it is still used.”we do, i think have the right to be both astonished & ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not the majority of modern textbooks!”
stephen jay gould [abscheulich! atrocious!] natural history march2000.
why does this continue?
p.s. i forgot to close my quote after “von baer;s law”
i know you’re not one to nitpick, but i wouldn’t want you thinking i don’t know punctuation; punctuated equilibrim notwithstanding ;]
see, now that you got me comfortable, i can make my dorky word jokes with you ;]
how could this be? it is hard to imagine a world without birds & reptiles. let’s get rid of insects instead ;] — Brooke
It’s not so hard to imagine a world without bird or reptiles — the pre-Cambrian world had neither.
how then [given a few exceptions, of course] does it account for species that are so consistantly uniform? — Brooke
Natural selection conserves mutations that are adaptive.
why? — Brooke
Natural selection is a contingent, historically-dependent process — it’s not endlessly elactic. What can happen in the future is limited by what has happened in the past. Birds and reptiles emerged from a specific rolls of the genetic dice. If you rolled those dice again, the odds against getting the same combination are very high.
why does this continue? — Brooke
The use of Haeckle’s embryo chart in textbooks? I would guess it’s because textbook writers are too often quite lazy, and they tend to borrow from each other.
I had the pleasure of meeting Stephen Jay Gould before his untimely death. He autographed a copy of The Panda’s Thumb for me.
“I had the pleasure of meeting Stephen Jay Gould before his untimely death. He autographed a copy of The Panda’s Thumb for me.”
too cool ;]
“It’s not so hard to imagine a world without bird or reptiles — the pre-Cambrian world had neither.”
when did birds/reptiles enter the picture? dinosaurs were reptiles, were they pre-cambrian?
“The use of Haeckle’s embryo chart in textbooks? I would guess it’s because textbook writers are too often quite lazy, and they tend to borrow from each other.”
then how can we know what’s reliable?
everything we’ve learned could be recycled falsehoods. thank goodness [or al gore] for the internet ;]
“If you rolled those dice again, the odds against getting the same combination are very high.”
true, although the number of “tries” would leave room for not getting the same combination. so in using this logic it would seem reasonable for things not to be as uniform as they are. does this make sense?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. — Voltaire ”
“It’s not so hard to imagine a world without bird or reptiles — the pre-Cambrian world had neither.”
i wasn’t around at this time. i’ve only known of a world with birds & reptiles so it’s hard for me to imagine otherwise ;]
when did birds/reptiles enter the picture? dinosaurs were reptiles, were they pre-cambrian? — Brooke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_time_scale
then how can we know what’s reliable? — Brooke
There’s an entire branch of philosophy devoted to answering this question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
everything we’ve learned could be recycled falsehoods. — Brooke
It would be nice if we could peek at the back of some book and see what the truth really is, but in practice the only solution I know of is to read very widely, seek out opposing points of view, and regard all knowledge as provisional.
true, although the number of “tries” would leave room for not getting the same combination. so in using this logic it would seem reasonable for things not to be as uniform as they are. does this make sense? — Brooke
Natural selection conserves adaptive mutations, so organisms tend to change only very gradually most of the time.
There are also mathematical effects at work. Any population tends to revert to the mean.
thanks for the link…
“If someone believes something, they think that it is true, but they may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge.” wikkipedia/epistemology
knowledge & belief go hand in hand, though. what we “know” to be true isn’t always necessarily so. For instance, science “knew” that the sun revolved around the earth [& i would imagine under the available evidence/philosophies they were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was so], but after later investigation they found that the opposite was true.
how can we know for certain that what we know, we do indeed know?
“Aside from a few enigmatic forms that may or may not represent animals, all modern animal phyla with any fossil record to speak of (except bryozoans) appear to have representatives in the Cambrian….However, several modern phyla, primarily those with small and/or soft bodies, have no fossil record, in the Cambrian or otherwise.”
[wikkipedia/cambrian
are you saying fish/reptiles are a post-cambrian phenomenon?
judging from the above quote: how would we know whether these guys existed cambrian or pre-cambrian as they have soft bodies which wouldn't leave fossils? [do we not have any fish fossils at all? surely we do]
“It would be nice if we could peek at the back of some book and see what the truth really is, but in practice the only solution I know of is to read very widely, seek out opposing points of view, and regard all knowledge as provisional.”
everyone should do this, without letting our respective biases get in the way. it’s easy to take too much for granted.
how can we know for certain that what we know, we do indeed know? — Brooke
Thinkers from Rene Descartes to Philip K. Dick have wrestled with that question. I’ve already given you my best answer on it.
are you saying fish/reptiles are a post-cambrian phenomenon? — Brooke
Yes. If you look at the geological time scale, you’ll see that both emerge well after the Cambrian.
how can we know for certain that what we know, we do indeed know? [me from post 350]
& in knowing that what we know is contingent on what we think we already know, how can anyone have the effrontery
to claim knowledge of anything?
how would we know whether these guys existed cambrian or pre-cambrian as they have soft bodies which wouldn’t leave fossils? — Brooke
Bones.
everyone should do this, without letting our respective biases get in the way. it’s easy to take too much for granted. — Brooke
It’s not the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know for sure that just ain’t so.
& in knowing that what we know is contingent on what we think we already know, how can anyone have the effrontery
to claim knowledge of anything? — Brooke
Encourages humility, doesn’t it?
“It’s not the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
so true
“Encourages humility, doesn’t it?”
it should ;]
where did you meet stephen jay gould? did you get to spend any time with him?
that is extremely cool!
where did you meet stephen jay gould? did you get to spend any time with him? — Brooke
I did get to spend several hours with him over the course of a couple of days. He came to speak at my university when I was a student, and a mutual friend introduced us.
i think i’d be speechless, if that’s possible.
newton is the one i’d like to meet.
he’s one of my heros.
alas, we had no mutual friends ;]
i think i’d be speechless, if that’s possible.
newton is the one i’d like to meet.
he’s one of my heros. — Brooke
I once had a professor who was on the faculty at Princeton the same time that Einstein was there at the Institute for Advanced Study.
I asked my professor if he ever met the great man, and he replied that, sure, sometimes he would see Einstein walking down the sidewalk.
I said, “Did you never walk up to him and introduce yourself, just to shake his hand?”
He said it never crossed his mind to do anything of the kind. He seemed to think it was a peculiar idea.
wow! unheard of! i remember one time a random, unknown cosmologist came into where i work. i was reading the elegant universe at the time. i was so excited & nervous. i think i chattered & talked his ear off for the whole time he was there ;]
“His death was itself memorably unusual. After becoming crippled with polio, Midgely invented a contraption involving a series of motorized pulleys that automatically raised or turned him in bed. In 1944, he became entangled in the cords as the machine went into action & was strangled.”
Oh the irony…
“Yes, I’ve seen that statement before. Most paleontologists seem to think that you can discern such relationships, and I don’t know what makes Nelson say it’s not possible. I wonder if he modified his views any in the decades after 1969?”
perhaps. i am reading about finding the ages of fossils right now. what is this about carbon 14″s half-life, or time it takes for half of any sample to disappear?
what does this mean?
“I once had a professor who was on the faculty at Princeton the same time that Einstein was there at the Institute for Advanced Study.”
do you think that that degree of separation thing works through the cyberworld? so then i’d be 3 degrees to einstein? [you'd be 2].
“I once had a professor who was on the faculty at Princeton the same time that Einstein was there at the Institute for Advanced Study.”
do you think that degree of separation thing works in the cyberworld? which would make me 3 degrees from einsten thanks to your 2 degrees?
what is this about carbon 14″s half-life, or time it takes for half of any sample to disappear? — Brooke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
do you think that degree of separation thing works in the cyberworld? which would make me 3 degrees from einsten thanks to your 2 degrees? — Brooke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
thanks for the carbon 14 link. i’ll look over it today.
y’know i am honestly suprised that this is even addressed. it’s nice to know i’m 3 degrees from greatness. [sadly i am no degrees to kevin bacon--he is greatness personified]
it seems as though i was thrown off this blog. thank you zack for indulging my questions. thanks austin for allowing me space. http://www.myspace.com/bmusterman if you want to continue these discussions, zack
i was surprised, but glad to see this up again!
zack, if you’re there, let’s delve right in.
this is funny:
“[Murray Gell-Mann's] colleague Richard Feynman wanted to call these new basic particles partons, as in Dolly, but was overruled. instead they became known as quarks.”
what flavor would the page layout program be?
the previous quote was on page165 of Bryson’s book.
What impact, if any, would string theory have on speciation?
so there is a constant cycle of carbon decaying & replenishing. is this correct?
that seems like an awfully neat, even number. would there be possibly any rogue carbon 14 isotopes that would have, say a 4/7 life?
austin, perhaps you can answer this for me.
where in the evolurionary scale would you say our sense of right & wrong develops?
would you say that morals are based on a combination of society & experience?
i know, for me personally, that when i am thinking with my reptilian brain/brainstem, there are definitely more shades of gray as far as morals are concerned.
just the simple fact that we can so easily go back & forth between higher & lower brains. & that we are affected so much by our reptilian brain could possibly be considered a strong argument in your favor.
to be clear, i do realize that primitive animals are not seeing “shades of gray,” they see two options, survival & non-survival. i was just trying to illustrate how easy it is to get in that survival mode where morals are, for all intents & purposes, a non-issue.