Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Louisiana Science Education Act brings Intelligent Design back into classroom
12345
Louisiana Science Education Act brings Intelligent Design back into classroom
2008-07-14, 11:23 PM #121
Originally posted by ECHOMAN:
Start over. Axis, post something useful.


The whole point here is that a creation 'scientist' literally cannot contribute meaningfully to any discourse where inductive logic and the scientific method are the agreed-upon methods of validating arguments.
2008-07-14, 11:25 PM #122
Originally posted by Axis:
I can't help but think I'm the most qualified to actually discuss the creation point of view, having devoted 3 college credits to "Creation and Science", but whatever light I could shed on the subject would be quickly darkened by ignorance, stupidity, flames, and massassi. However, in person or over MSN, I would be delighted to discuss it, and I do feel that the creation point of view has a lot going for it, and I do think evolution has a lot of serious issues that people seem to overlook.

So yes, MSN, combo_limit@hotmail.com if you care.

And no, I didn't waste my time by reading the last 3 pages of posts, and I likely won't read the posts to follow.

I did, however, read the first post, and I think it's a good idea to teach creation, but at the same time, they need to do it very carefully, lest they come across as idiots. Any time someone tries to defend something they know nothing about, they seem to end up making whatever it is they're defending look bad. (That goes for just about anything, or any side.)
Creationists and Intelligent Designers need to study up on St. Augustine--he was addressing this stuff centuries ago:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."
2008-07-14, 11:27 PM #123
Originally posted by Axis:
So yes, lazy and not scientific. Absolutely spot on. :suicide:


Given the fact that creation 'science' is not science, you are not scientific. The claims you make literally cannot be proven using the scientific method or inductive logic. It is not scientific, it is not science. Not opinion. Fact. Cold, hard, empirical fact: Not science. Not a science, not scientific. Doesn't even attempt to be scientific. It's a red herring for people who don't understand what science is.

Given the fact that you have not formulated a contradictory argument explaining exactly why creation 'science' is a science you are probably lazy, but also wise because it's literally impossible to make a logical argument to this effect.

You believe in God? Super. That God created the earth in seven days? That's okay. You believe God motivated evolution? Awesome, so do I. Is it science? No, for Christ's sake, no it isn't.
2008-07-14, 11:45 PM #124
Originally posted by Jon`C:
You believe in God? Super. That God created the earth in seven days? That's okay. You believe God motivated evolution? Awesome, so do I. Is it science? No, for Christ's sake, no it isn't.


This.

Apart from I don't believe.

But that's actually irrelevant.
2008-07-14, 11:45 PM #125
Originally posted by Wuss:
Excellent post
Excellent post, Wuss. Just goes to show that people who are intelligent freethinkers will always rise above blind convictions and see both sides of an argument regardless of their own beliefs.
Dreams of a dreamer from afar to a fardreamer.
2008-07-15, 2:02 AM #126
Originally posted by JM:
Raymond Smullyan said in 'The Tao is Silent';

At any rate, as matters now stand, I am less tolerant of an intolerant attitude towards astrology than I am of astrology itself. Indeed, even though I do not believe in astrology, if I had my choice of believing in astrology, or in being intolerant of astrology, I would far rather believe in astrology.

Replace 'astrology' with 'intelligent design' or 'creationism' or whatever. He also said;

In my simple opinion, those who are most intolerant of irrationality are not those who are most rational, but those who repress their irrationalities while at the same time "priding themselves" on being so rational.


Being intorelant of a person's ideas is not the same is being intolerant of the person themselves.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-07-15, 6:03 AM #127
I had a conversation with a creationist. I'll throw caveats right up front. My biology education is a decade out of date, and it wasn't exactly thorough to begin with it. I'm particularly fuzzy on how a protein comes along and 'triggers' a gene to start producing proteins. I'm pretty sure it has to do with binding and folding.

Quote:
Evolutionist: I don't for a minute believe in creation or intelligent design, but I seem to be on your side of the argument anyway.
Creationist: Howso?
Evolutionist: Also, I just mentioned the book 'The Tao is Silent'.
Evolutionist: So I'm going to be flamed for being a 'taochristian' or whatever they are calling me now.
Creationist: Well, there are problems with evolution that people don't seem to consider...
Creationist: And obviously, this is a huge subject, so forgive me if it seems like I jump around
Creationist: And there's a lot more to the creation point of view than saying "God did it"
Evolutionist: Mostly what I see from creationists is a fundamental mis understanding of how evolution works.
Evolutionist: Things like the watch maker argument. Nothing about evolution says that microorganisms just 'came together' out of chaos.
Creationist: Yeah... the watch maker argument is not very meaty
Creationist: And well, all we really have to make our conclusions, is what we have to look at here and now
Creationist: You know?
Evolutionist: You understand how invoking religion doesn't work in a debate with a non-believer, right?
Evolutionist: Just making sure so you don't, not saying you have.
Creationist: Right, and actually, it bothers me how quickly people make the jump to religion
Creationist: Or make the other person make the jump. :P
Creationist: I'd much rather relgion and the politics associated with it could just be set aside
Creationist: And we could just assume some... thing, caused creation to begin at such and such point, and not worry about what that thing was.
Evolutionist: Fat chance of that happening.
Creationist: That is, in the creation model,
Creationist: Not evolution
Evolutionist: Especially if you use the term 'creation'.
Creationist: Hmm
Creationist: Well, I'm not sure what word to use other than creation
Evolutionist: The problem with 'creation' is that it implies a 'creator'.
Evolutionist: The term 'genesis' is ironically less religious.
Creationist: Hmm
Creationist: Anyway
Creationist: It seems to me,
Creationist: And this is just... what I've observed
Creationist: Well
Creationist: First off, I'm not like... crazy anti-evolution or anything. I'm completely open to whatever the evidence points to, from my point of view.
Creationist: And after looking at what I have, I've decided on something that doesn't favor evolution, but... I'm not like crazy biased.
Evolutionist: I'm not anti-religion or even anti-creation either, I just don't believe in it.
Creationist: mhm
Creationist: I guess, to start with, I believe that at some point in the past, the different kinds of animals existed with a fuller sort of gene pool, and as time has gone by, natural selection had shaped those kinds of animals to give us the variation that we see in animal life today. For example, one set of dogs existed at one time, with all the genetic information for the dogs we have today, and as...
Creationist: different dogs lost certain information, and then mixed with other that had lost other information, due to environment and what not, we've got all these different kinds of dogs.
Creationist: I think that in general
Creationist: Our world does not work upwards to more complex, but instead, works slowly towards a more dis-orderly system
Creationist: Entropy
Evolutionist: But life is a mechanism 'designed' for the purpose of fighting entropy.
Creationist: Howso?
Evolutionist: Entropy is a loss of information. DNA is information; life preserves information against entropy.
Evolutionist: It works because the earth is not a closed system. Life maintains local order at the expense of increased entropy elsewhere.
Creationist: Indeed, the earth is not a closed system.
Evolutionist: But disregard that. You believe that evolution works by the loss of information. Have you studied genetics?
Creationist: No, no.
Creationist: I think that evolution doesn't work, because it needs a gain of information.
Evolutionist: Then we need a better term for that sort of gradual change.
Creationist: Which you can never get, in genetics.
Creationist: De-evolution?
Evolutionist: No. ...
Evolutionist: We'll just call it change, then.
Creationist: Alright.
Evolutionist: Is there room in your theory for a modification of the information, rather than a loss of it?
Creationist: Yes.
Evolutionist: So you allow for random mutation?
Creationist: Yes, but random mutation is never beneficial.
Evolutionist: Never?
Creationist: Can you provide an example?
Evolutionist: We don't have evidence either way of the kinds of small mutations Creationists espouse.
Evolutionist: All we have are the horrible sorts which often aren't caused by 'nature' at all.
Creationist: From what we have here and now, that is observable, there is no evidence that mutations are ever beneficial.
Evolutionist: That does not constitute that they are never beneficial.
Creationist: True
Evolutionist: (Note that I'm not agreeing that there is no evidence, I just don't personally have any evidence.)
Evolutionist: So they could be beneficial. But even if they never are, our definition of 'change' does not require that the change be 'for the better'.
Creationist: But in evolution, at some point, the change needs to be from simple to more complex, right?
Evolutionist: Assuming, then, that we have two mechanisms for change : Loss of information and random mutation. Two things come to mind.
Evolutionist: First, this would imply that all change is from complex to simple, which does not agree with the fossil record.
Evolutionist: Second, could it not be possible that this random mutation affected the process by which the data is copied in such a way that 'extra' data was copied?
Evolutionist: Thirdly, and I know I only said two, the genetic complexity of animals appears to be inversely exponential, such that the genetic difference between an ameoba and a fly is exponentially greater than between that fly and us.
Creationist: True
Creationist: But I'm hesitant to give too much credit to the fossil record.
Creationist: And for extra data to be copied...
Creationist: That extra data needs to come from somewhere.
Creationist: It needs to be "written" before it can be copied.
Evolutionist: Incidentally, it is true that 'breeding' - the process by which dogs split into multiple breeds - is due to loss of genetic information. It's pretty simple to confirm this by breeding several different breeds together; in general you end up with something very near a wolf.
Evolutionist: This is also why muts are usually healthier and smarter than pure-breds.
Creationist: Mhm
Evolutionist: For the extra data, perhaps it copied some part of the genome twice. Perhaps it's random amino acids that stuck to the end of the chain.
Evolutionist: The point to consider is that, once it's there, it will be copied. And it might change something.
Creationist: I find it hard to believe that a random amino acid brought about mankind.
Evolutionist: A random amino acid didn't.
Evolutionist: But several billion of them could.
Evolutionist: It's not impossible, merely very unlikely.
Creationist: Yes, but statistically, it's impossible.
Evolutionist: There's a rather large set to draw from.
Evolutionist: If something is 'one in a million', but you have a billion, it's suddenly not so rare, is it?
Evolutionist: But that's irrelevant, because it's not at all how evolution claims to work. That's the watch maker argument all over again.
Creationist: Anyway, how does evolution claim to work?
Evolutionist: Depends on which Creationist you ask, mostly.
Creationist: This is true.
Evolutionist: It's important to remember that Darwin didn't know a damn thing about genetics when he came up with 'survival of the fittest'.
Evolutionist: Mostly, it would come down to variation.
Creationist: Darwin knew very little, and it amazes me and how people "worship" him for what he did.
Evolutionist: Fish with bigger fins could swim faster. So maybe more fish with bigger fins lived.
Creationist: I'd consider that natural selection, which is totally observable.
Evolutionist: Indeed. Then the question becomes, how does a fish get bigger fins?
Evolutionist: First, it's an error to assume there is a 'big fin gene'.
Creationist: Howso?
Evolutionist: Fin size would most likely be a product of many genes interacting.
Evolutionist: The most obvious analogy I see, and one that has been studied and can be researched online, is human skin color.
Evolutionist: There isn't a 'skin color gene', and skin color doesn't mix towards a middle ground either.
Evolutionist: There are actually sixteen known genes that affect skin color.
Evolutionist: If you have all sixteen, you're midnight black.
Evolutionist: If you have none, you're albino.
Evolutionist: But two people in the middle who each had 8 could produce offspring that were midnight or albino, if the 8 they had happened to not overlap.
Creationist: Right
Evolutionist: The math comes out at something like a in 52 shot of a child getting all 6 genes from them.
Evolutionist: Lets apply that to the fish.
Evolutionist: Some lucky and goofy looking fish gets all 6 genes that make fins bigger.
Evolutionist: He's one speedy sucker.
Evolutionist: Now, when he reproduces, he can only pass on big-fin genes.
Creationist: Well
Creationist: Not neccesarily
Evolutionist: His children will always get 8 big fin genes from him. If this continues, the gene pool will become saturated with big fin genes, to the point where having bigger fins is no longer a mechanism for higher survivability.
Creationist: sorry, sec
Evolutionist: It is also an error to assume that these big-fin genes only affect fin size.
Creationist: All these people attacking me in real life
Creationist: I agree with you thus far, except that are you considering recessive traits?
Creationist: There's always the off-chance that one will come out that is just way off
Creationist: Like white families suddenly have a black kid, or twins that are two totally different skin colors.
Creationist: (back)
Evolutionist: Of course I'm considering recessive traits.
Evolutionist: But genes to not always, and in fact usually don't, come in neat little 'recessive/dominant' pairs.
Evolutionist: More often the recessive trait is not a gene at all, but a lack of a gene.
Evolutionist: Lets go back to the fish; we have all these fish swimming around with really big fins.
Evolutionist: Lets introduce random mutation.
Creationist: Right
Evolutionist: A mutation to one of those big-fin genes won't actually affect the size of the fin much. Afterall, it's just one of several genes that affect fin size.
Evolutionist: Maybe the fin is slightly bigger. Maybe it's slightly smaller. But now there are new mutations of these genes in the gene pool. And as they build up, there will be more variation in fin size.
Evolutionist: Except now the baseline for fin size is not the fin size of the original fish, it's the fin size of the second set of big-fin fish.
Evolutionist: Now the process repeats itself, and these new even-bigger-fin genes give the fish more survivability than merely big-fin genes.
Evolutionist: And that's how evolution works. Neat, isn't it?
Creationist: Well
Creationist: Ehhhh
Evolutionist: You're wondering, 'how does a random mutation 'adjust' a gene like that?'
Creationist: First off, that's assuming that mutation can be beneficial, despite mutations being rare and totally random
Evolutionist: Yes, thats what I expected you to ask.
Evolutionist: And answering that question requires us to delve a little bit in developmental biology.
Evolutionist: Your genes are sort of like a blue print for a human being. There's a little bit of 'administration' tacked on top about how the body should go about running once it's built, but the vast majority of your genes are only 'used' once, during construction.
Creationist: mhm
Evolutionist: The way genes work is by producing proteins. All genes are actually just patterns for the construction of proteins. The development of a body from fertilized egg to zygote to embryo and on is controlled by proteins flying around between cells and binding with genes.
Creationist: mhm
Evolutionist: This is the basic mechanism by which all the instructions are given. Certain proteins might trigger certain genes which will produce other proteins, and so on.
Evolutionist: Now, the subject of random mutation.
Evolutionist: And I realize I didn't give enough background; when proteins bind to DNA, they change it's physical shape.
Creationist: mhm
Evolutionist: Which allows proteins to be constructed off that strand of DNA. A protein might connect to one part of the DNA and allow a protein to be constructed off an entirely different part.
Evolutionist: There are likely bits of DNA that exist only to be bound too and are never involved in the construction of a protein.
Evolutionist: We're interested in both kinds of DNA.
Evolutionist: First some assumptions, or rather, anti-assumptions.
Evolutionist: We will assume that multiple genes could produce the same protein, because assuming the opposite is both illogical and would lead to a lot of missing proteins through normal reproduction.
Evolutionist: Second, we assume that not all genes that produce a given protein react to the same protein stimulus.
Evolutionist: Now then, a random mutation can affect the production of a protein in many ways.
Evolutionist: It can make it produce no protein at all. It can make it produce a different protein. It can change the stimulus. It can make it produce the protein more often or less often.
Creationist: mhm
Evolutionist: The random change of a single amino acid can do this. (And in actuality, DNA is very good at NOT mutating. So most changes would be on the order of a single amino acid inserted, deleted, or changed.)
Evolutionist: Since these proteins are the messaging system of the body, that affect everything including the growth rate of fish fins, we see how a random mutation can slightly alter fin size without having a devastating affect on the body.
Creationist: These changes are all really really subtle, though. They're not going to give the mouse wings, or the fish legs.
Evolutionist: No. But they might give the fish tougher fins.
Creationist: Yup
Creationist: They might.
Evolutionist: And tough-finned fish might develop even tougher fins.
Evolutionist: Which could eventually lead to hard structures inside the fins; lets go ahead and call these bones.
Evolutionist: Which would be rather pointless, because the fish already had bony fins - but I digress.
Evolutionist: Now lets say that for some reason a fish that can push itself along on the ground with these fins survived better.
Evolutionist: Maybe the fish developed extra-tough scales at the ends of their fins for this purpose.
Creationist: Now we're staaaarting to stretch a little, and the working mechanisms of the joints to make legs... and then, in this "transition" it would have totally useless bodyparts that would make it more likely to be killed off through natural selection, than made it survive better.
Evolutionist: How can you say that?
Evolutionist: The transitionary form would not develop in the first place if it was not more survivable.
Creationist: That's... what I think.
Creationist: It'd have little nubbys or something, which wouldn't be doing it much good.
Evolutionist: But that goes entirely against the mechanism I just finished describing. And, indeed, it would be good for something.
Creationist: The fins would be good
Creationist: And the tougher skin would be good
Evolutionist: Perhaps it allowed the fish to crawl across mud between pools during the dry season.
Evolutionist: Something impossible with big soft fins, but quite easy with bony nubs.
Creationist: Mkay
Evolutionist: And perhaps the fish was slower in the water; but when the pool dried up, all those soft-finned fish died anyway, including the predators that ate the nub-fish.
Creationist: Although there's nothing controlling this mutation, so there's quite possibly a plethora of fish that got their nubs in the wrong spot and died off, right?
Evolutionist: No. The nubs would be right where the fins are, the fish aren't sprouting nubs at random locations.
Evolutionist: But there are always a large number dying off.
Evolutionist: Evolution seems to work best when there's a low survival rate. If the animal is surviving anyway, why would having hard fins matter?
Creationist: The conditions would have to be just right
Evolutionist: You'd be surprised just how many conditions fall under 'just right'.
Creationist: Because if you're not careful, the environment would change too rapidly, and the animal would die, rather than adapt.
Evolutionist: And that happens. A lot.
Evolutionist: We aren't talking about an animal adapting to survive because a volcano blew up.
Evolutionist: We're talking about an animal adapting to survive because the continents drifted.
Creationist: Right
Evolutionist: It's a process that happens over thousands of generations.
Evolutionist: You mind if I post this conversation places?
Creationist: Mmm, like where?
Evolutionist: Like massassi. And my blog. And that's it.
Creationist: Massassi, not-so-much
Creationist: You blog, that's totally fine
Evolutionist: You don't mind posting on massassi so much, or was that a reverse double negative?
Creationist: :P
Creationist: I'd rather you didn't post this on massassi
Creationist: I mean, it's up to you.
Evolutionist: Even if you don't agree with my explanation of evolution, do you understand it?
Creationist: Of course, and I don't think less of you or anything like that for your position.
Evolutionist: Perhaps if I used the term 'hormone' instead of 'protein'.
Evolutionist: And, no, I meant understand in the literal sense. Was my explanation clear?
Creationist: Yeah
Evolutionist: Good. I don't really care if you understand why I think that way or 'accept me' or any of that crap. I'm rather tolerant of intolerance that way.
Creationist: But
Creationist: You do see where I'm coming from, somewhat?
Evolutionist: I have a hard time understanding how anyone can look at the scientific evidence of anything and not believe it, unless they don't understand that evidence. And that just makes me want to explain the evidence and the mechanism it suggests to them.
Evolutionist: So, no, I don't think I see at all where you're coming from.
Creationist: But you realize that even your position demands this sort of faith that mutations can be beneficial, despite all the the scientific evidence saying that they -never- are?
Evolutionist: If there was such scientific evidence, then yes, it would require a certain sort of faith.
Evolutionist: But that does not disturb me in the slightest.
Evolutionist: I've been attacked before precisely for saying that science and religion are not so different; that both require faith.
Evolutionist: Science, in general, requires a faith that there are actually 'rules' out there to be discovered; a faith that the universe doesn't run on magic and lollipops.
Evolutionist: Please type faster, it's almost 2 am and I have to go to sleep.
Creationist: In either case, though, there is a level of unknown, where you have to make a sort of best-guess, based on the information you have. And by "best guess" I mean you can be 00% right or 99% right or maybe just sorta kinda have gut feeling right...
Creationist: You look at all the evidence you have individually, and build what you believe off of that....
Evolutionist: I think you're not making a distinction between macro and micro mutations. The sort of mutations you seem to be thinking of are things like six legged frogs and two headed snakes. In those cases you're right, they never seem to be beneficial. But those aren't the sorts of mutations that drive evolution.
Evolutionist: Those are macro mutations. Micro mutations may seem to make the animal no different at all. In the case of the fish, it could be a change in fin size of % or less.
Evolutionist: And they won't make difference until that population is put under pressure.
Creationist: Yes, but the mutations you're thinking of don't create entirely new species.
Evolutionist: No. I did not say they did.
Evolutionist: Speciation takes several thousands of generations, it seems.
Evolutionist: The genomes have to become so incompatible that the animals can no longer mate, and this only happens when the populations are in isolation.
Evolutionist: Even so, we see lots of examples where it is incomplete.
Evolutionist: Big cats; equines.
Creationist: Even if this did take place, a gradual addition of these changes doesn't sufficiently explain the animals we have to day. At least not to me.
Creationist: But yes
Creationist: It's late
Creationist: And this could go on for a long time
Evolutionist: You have to consider how many species there are now compared to how many there have been, and you also have to realize that there is no one point where one species becomes another.
Evolutionist: And it's not so much late as very early. I'm off.
Creationist: kk
Creationist: Good talking with you
2008-07-15, 6:03 AM #128
That's somewhat longer than I remembered.
2008-07-15, 6:35 AM #129
So, is that Axis then?

Quote:
Creationist: But you realize that even your position demands this sort of faith that mutations can be beneficial, despite all the the scientific evidence saying that they -never- are?


He says that kind of stuff a lot, yet we've witnesses in REAL TIME bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics (and other poisons) through natural selection.

Everyone should read The Blind Watchmaker, it's really good at clarifying and dismissing all of these basic "problems" with Natural Selection. It's also a good read in general.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2008-07-15, 7:18 AM #130
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, he writes very eloquently and is a great champion of rationality. Unfortunately, he's also a bit of a ****; it often overshadows the fact that while he is pretty much always right, he's still an utter ****.

I'd also like to add that controversies do exist in science, the scientific community does not stifle controvesy or dissent in any way. I'm currently reading a book that is suggesting that Maxwell's equations do not provide a complete description of electrodynamics (which is a fairly controversial statement), and provides an alternate fundemental model of electrodynamics (of a topological foundation, by description of instantons if anyone is interested).
Related to this is the question of 'where are all the magnetic monopoles?!'. An electric monopole is a single bundle of charge, like an electron. They exist, no problem. So a magnetic monopole should be a single bundle of magnetism, but all the magnets we've ever observed have (at least) two poles. There have been various controversial papers suggesting proof of magnetic monopoles, or mathematical proofs that magnetic monopoles are impossible, but this is still an open question and a controversial topic either way.

So the idea that science precludes the very idea of 'controvesy' is utterly false. There are plenty of controversies in science, evolution just isn't one of them.

If you really want an ever-so-slightly-more-plausable description of 'creation', you should really insert 'God' into a topic that genuinely is controversial. Maybe God is a magnetic monopole! Or a Higg's boson!
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-07-15, 7:43 AM #131
Dawkins is smug git. I totally agree.
2008-07-15, 11:11 AM #132
I stopped reading after "See, I believe that there were these animals..."
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2008-07-15, 11:44 AM #133
I stopped reading after "Our world does not work upwards to more complex, but instead, works slowly towards a more dis-orderly system."

Even if you ignore the fact that our planet absorbs low-entropy radiation from the sun and radiates high-entropy radiation into space, creating a positive flow of order into our planet's system. Even if you ignore that fact, the easily-observable conversion of chaos into order caused by plants growing makes this sound like spastic grunting.
2008-07-15, 3:06 PM #134
I was really more interested in what you all thought of my explanation of how evolution works.

It was also rather stuck on how new information could be added to the system for a while. My explanation of how it was possible is rather vague and crappy. There has to be some mechanism that allows DNA to 'grow', such that a child would have more genetic information than it's parents.
2008-07-15, 3:09 PM #135
And in response to;

Quote:
You essentially said that suppressing irrationality is bad, and that being proud of being rational is bad. I didn't realize that irrationality was ever a good thing in any sense of the word ever.


No, what I essentially said was "The people who are most intolerant of irrationality are the ones suppressing their own irrationality." That's what I said. Anything further you imply from that is your own concern; do not credit meaning to me that I do not explicitly state.

Incidentally, this is the exact same principle you apply when you call a homophobe gay.
2008-07-15, 3:32 PM #136
Has anybody seriously railed against people who believe in creationism? As far as I could tell pretty much everybody was just criticizing them for trying to call their religion science. I think that's pretty worthy of intolerance just because of how stupid it is.
2008-07-15, 4:14 PM #137
I don't think so. We could, if you like. But I don't see so much irrationality from people who reject evolution as ignorance. All the arguments I have ever seen have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution actually is.

My favorite is the 'what are the chances that a horse would evolve?' They say something like one a billion, which is probably right. On the other hand, the horse did evolve - so obviously the chances that it would are one in one. Furthermore, if the horse evolved differently - say they had six legs - would we be going around saying 'Our horses are wrong"? No, we'd think it was perfectly normal for horses to have six legs.

But on the other hand, I'm tolerant of pretty much everything. Except intolerance. But I'm fairly tolerant of my intolerance of intolerance, so I get by. Also I hate you, so you must be wrong.
2008-07-15, 5:07 PM #138
Originally posted by Detty:
He says that kind of stuff a lot, yet we've witnesses in REAL TIME bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics (and other poisons) through natural selection.

They do this in college intro biology courses. I didn't get to do it in mine since I took the general biology for non-biology majors, but a friend of mine did just what you say a few months ago.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-07-15, 5:10 PM #139
No jm i hate you. You are dumb and smell bad.

Er... what are you saying? Something that does happen must have had 1:1 odds of happening? That's not how probability works.

My favorite creationist argument has to be about the banana. Clearly God created everything because the banana is the perfect shape to fit in the hand, has an easily-removable peel that keeps the fruit from being damaged, has an attractive color and bears nutrients vital to primates. :suicide:
2008-07-15, 5:17 PM #140
Yeah, they don't realize that wild bananas are filled with hard, BB-sized seeds that make it damn near impossible to eat.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-07-15, 5:34 PM #141
They also ignore the possibility that we were the ones who evolved to make the banana so nice.
2008-07-15, 5:40 PM #142
You mean evolve to conform to the banana? It's possible, if not far fetched. But I get what you mean.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-07-15, 6:21 PM #143
That's possible, but more likely the domesticated banana is so perfect because we bred the most perfect bananas over and over and over. Kinda like how cows are so perfect for making into steaks and aurochs would be kind of a pain in the *** if they weren't extinct.
2008-07-15, 7:32 PM #144
HEY EVERYONE!

Want to revive the entire massassi community in just TWO DAYS!??


Start a thread on religion! Awesome!





Seriously, I don't know why you people get so worked up over this BS. To every man his own and we'll see whos right and whos wrong when were all dead.



Meh.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-07-15, 7:36 PM #145
..are you Tiberium_empire...?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2008-07-15, 7:37 PM #146
Right, that's exactly what happened. Same with corn and many other plant species that did not originally exist. They are all the result of selective breeding.

By the way, DNA isn't composed of proteins as (I think) you stated. Rather, it's a sequence of nucleotides, which are compounds consisting of a nitrogenous base, a sugar and a phosphate group.

A bit about DNA mutation for Axis the guy in the chat log. It's a simplification but it gets the point across.

The four nucleotides used in DNA are adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. For short, A, C, G and T. DNA is composed of two nucleotide strands in a helix formation, with these A, C, G and T bases pairing together. But there is order to the pairing. Only A can bind with T, and only C can match with G.

In order to replicate DNA, the strand of DNA must be split apart and then combined with free nucleotides to create a new strand. Because each base pair can only fit, literally and physically fit with one other type of base pair, you only need one strand to contain all the information. When DNA is replicated, an enzyme called DNA polymerase moves along a strand of DNA, splitting it apart. As the strands are being "pulled" apart, the base pairs bind with other, free base pairs in the surrounding nucleoplasm (like cytoplasm but in the nucleus). You end up with two strands of identical DNA.

A good analogy might be magnets. Say you have four kinds of magnets, but each magnet can only stick to one other type of magnet. If you glue the magnets to a string and then run them through a pile of other magnets, you'll end up with complementary pairs of magnets. For the sake of the analogy ignore the fact that there is no second string and ignore that the magnets in the pile would stick together. The actual chemistry is of course more complicated than that.

Thing is, the DNA replication process isn't perfect. Base pairs don't always match up correctly (the chemistry of which is beyond this discussion). DNA polymerase also functions as error correction, kind of moving up and down strands of DNA and correcting errors in them. We need this, otherwise we'd quickly degenerate into piles of...something useless, that's for sure. DNA needs to remain intact for things to function. However, even DNA polymerase isn't perfect. Sometimes base pairs will be mismatched, even after error correction. Then the next time that strand of DNA duplicates, the result will be two strands of DNA, each with an incorrect base pair in its sequence. If you have an A that's stuck to a G, the resulting DNA strands will be AT and CG, instead of both being AT. These minor mutations are called point mutations. Normally they're harmless, because one base pair mismatch isn't enough to cause serious problems.

These mutations accumlate over time, through many generations. Enough of these may be able to produce a change in the physical traits of an organism. Many times these mutations are negative. A mutation might result in a smaller heart, reducing blood flow and physical endurance. Maybe the mutation results in a defective heart and the organism dies shortly after birth. But a mutation could also result in a slightly larger beak on a bird, or a slightly larger tail of a fish. This is where natural selection comes in. If the mutation results in a trait that is beneficial to the organism, the organism is more likely to survive, reproduce and pass on the genes to its offspring. If the mutation results in a trait that is determental, the organism will be more likely to die off and not pass on its genes.

Wow. :psyduck:
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-07-15, 7:44 PM #147
Wow. I take a break for one day & I have to read for 15 minutes to catch up.

You're all correct about Dawkins. While I enjoy reading his books, there's just something about him that gets under my skin. I just can't image how pissed off he'd make me if I were a Christian. I suppose that he's not as aggressive as say...Hitchens, but also not as humorous. Sam Harris is quite good too.
? :)
2008-07-15, 7:50 PM #148
Yeah, except more complected. *Very* few mutations are beneficial, not all of them get passed on, and then there is a difference between simply changing the size or some other attribute about a system, and seeing a new system develop. That's where the Black Box argument comes in. Of course from the get go, it can't be conclusive. It simply points out that we don't necessarily understand how everything could come about. We don't know how gravity works, that doesn't mean we go floating off into space.

Originally posted by Mentat:
Wow. I take a break for one day & I have to read for 15 minutes to catch up.

You're all correct about Dawkins. While I enjoy reading his books, there's just something about him that gets under my skin. I just can't image how pissed off he'd make me if I were a Christian. I suppose that he's not as aggressive as say...Hitchens, but also not as humorous. Sam Harris is quite good too.



He tries to hard; he comes off as insecure or something. Also, he's a much better biologist than he is a philosopher.
2008-07-15, 8:09 PM #149
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Yeah, except more complected. *Very* few mutations are beneficial, not all of them get passed on, and then there is a difference between simply changing the size or some other attribute about a system, and seeing a new system develop.


Originally posted by Emon:
It's a simplification

hello
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-07-15, 8:32 PM #150
Originally posted by Emon:
These mutations accumlate over time, through many generations. Enough of these may be able to produce a change in the physical traits of an organism. Many times these mutations are negative. A mutation might result in a smaller heart, reducing blood flow and physical endurance. Maybe the mutation results in a defective heart and the organism dies shortly after birth. But a mutation could also result in a slightly larger beak on a bird, or a slightly larger tail of a fish. This is where natural selection comes in. If the mutation results in a trait that is beneficial to the organism, the organism is more likely to survive, reproduce and pass on the genes to its offspring. If the mutation results in a trait that is determental, the organism will be more likely to die off and not pass on its genes.

Wow. :psyduck:


It really makes you wonder what the fate of humanity is, since now almost any yokel with bad genes can survive long enough to pass them on.

I guess we'll need genetic engineering to smooth things over.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2008-07-15, 9:07 PM #151
*gets ADD*


This is like a college psychology course on a bad and BORING day.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-07-15, 9:25 PM #152
Quote:
By the way, DNA isn't composed of proteins as (I think) you stated.
Yes, I seem to have mistaken amino acids for nucleotides. It uses nucleotide sequences to build amino acid sequences, where certain amino acids bind to certain patterns of nucleotides, or something.

Theres a much more pressing argument against how the DNA system came about, unless we have something more than theories about abiogenesis.
2008-07-15, 9:27 PM #153
It's also important to note that beneficial mutations don't actually matter unless the population is under pressure. If all the animals are surviving and mating, whether they have this benefit or not, the population will remain mostly static.
2008-07-15, 9:30 PM #154
Not necessarily. A species with a trait that makes them highly productive with a dominant gene can completely alter the species regardless of environment. But I guess that counts as "pressure."
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2008-07-16, 2:35 AM #155
Originally posted by JM:
I don't think so. We could, if you like. But I don't see so much irrationality from people who reject evolution as ignorance. All the arguments I have ever seen have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution actually is.

Except plenty of them are quite happy to lie for Jesus or Allah to make their point. Quote-mining is rife amongst creationists and that's clearly underhanded.
I attended a creationist talk once and he brought up actual total falsehoods in a nice fancy powerpoint and video presentation. I'm not talking about mistakes but things like the old tactic of quoting Darwin on the eye and missing off the rest of his speech about how the eye might have evolved. During question time I asked him why he missed out the rest and he started talking about the Earth's orbit and Anthony Flew :huh:

I think the average joe creationist probably is misguided but they listen to a lot of charlatans and deliberately ignore opposing voices. Like in this case, the audience fairly quickly ignored that the speaker was lying because he said "insh'allah" more than me and said the things they wanted to hear.
2008-07-16, 5:43 AM #156
I was getting really annoyed with you until you added that last bit.
2008-07-16, 8:09 AM #157
Why?

There's a very precise set of arguments and tactics that creationists always use. It isn't honest misunderstanding of the science, they are deliberate falsehoods that make it 'look' like they know the science and completely ignore the resolution of their arguments.
I'm pretty damn confident that I can refute every single creationist argument. I'm not a biologist, I'm not even very good at biology, but I don't need to be; I've just seen exactly the same arguments and talking points time and time again. There's nothing new, there's no intellectual discovery being made as a result of this process, it is just political maneuvering.

That is why this is not a scientific debate, it is instead refuting a political position that aims to seed religion and the supernatural into science. It is an anti-rational political movement that is gaining power through apathy (and also because few scientists really have the time or inclination to oppose it, as they're too busy saving the ****ing world to deal with religious nutjobs).

I would really love for a Creationist to meet a Raëlian, as they too believe in creationism only instead of 'God' they use 'aliens'. Now that's just silly!
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-07-16, 8:24 AM #158
I believe Aliens a lot sooner than I believe invisible buddies.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2008-07-16, 9:38 AM #159
Originally posted by Emon:
hello


Well, yeah, but not just that; there was simply a bit more to it.
2008-07-16, 12:26 PM #160
Quote:
Why?


Because the vast majority of them do this out of ignorance, not maliciousness.

The ones who are 'evil'? Go ahead and bash them. The ones that are just fools? Leave them alone. There are just as many idiots who repeat what they are told without understanding it on this side of the debate as that side.
12345

↑ Up to the top!