Butterfly evolves 'instant evolution' - Page 3

From the NG Article...

The work shows that "evolution doesn't have to take eons," Jaenike said. "It can take place in a couple of years."

Please let them know how stupid they are...

Double post.

Huh?

I, as a scientist, would argue that TESTABLE conjecture IS SCIENCE.

And no, this isn't what I would consider a new species. Yes it is microevolution. No we don't have a workable definition of species (because it is a human concept) so asking whether this small change is a different species is all but irrelevant. Pervasive microevolution is macroevolution.

[CENTER]





[/CENTER]

I Love Jackalopes!!! Fast as Fast Can BEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Second one was great too. It was just the right amount of humor.

Third was a very lame version of the second. Starting to get off on the if you don't agree with me you are an idiot. Nobody in this thread believes the world is flat, in fact, you would be very hard pressed to find anyone in the US that believes that. Least of all intelligent design backers.

The last one, well, just plain BS. Addresses nothing and is a bit spiteful. Especially the subtext.

Thanks for trying to bring a little levity to the thread.

The first one is what the ID'ers demand, immediate real time observations of new species, of complex animals, from one form to another distinct form in a matter of years (or an individual lifetime). Of course, we humans have a long history of domestication and breeding of wild species, so perhaps humans are the Intelligent Designer(s) (or Ignorant Designer(s) depending on one's POV). See for instance Canid hybrid (specifically Sulimov Dogs which took ~25 years to develop (e. g. one's lifetime)).

The second one illustrates the facade of science placed over a very old belief system, but applies to all belief systems faced with a lack of empirical, observational, objective, and testable hypotheses and theories (aka the scientific method).

The third one, the "flat earth" illustration shows what most (if not all) people believed at one time, A LONG TIME AGO! Sound even vaguely familiar? Heck some people still believe it, mostly the uneducated or primitives, but even today some very well educated people still believe it. But without a deity (or deities), rituals, customs, ornate buildings (going back thousands of years (see for instance Egyptology)), codifications, pretty windows, doctrines, and dogmas, the "flat earth" model doesn't stand the test of time. Also, at one time people believed everything revolved around the Earth, but the "flat earth" is much simpler to illustrate metaphorically. Albert Einstein said it best (and recent research backs up the acquisition of common sense gained in a youth through "trusted sources");


The fourth one, illustrates the truth of the matter, that ID has no underlying scientific basis, and as such can be dismissed in the 20 seconds (or so) that it deserves in a scientific setting,

As is usual with modernity, christians adopt the current cultural features into their teachings (e. g. ID, christian rock, game rooms, etceteras) to maintain and perpetuate their flocks, which history illustrates with their continuous adaptations and subspecies developments, now numbering in the thousands (at least). Talk about (theistic) evolution!

The flat-earth one is the best.

Clearly it shows, that whatever non-sense the Christian evangelicals throw out over the ages, it will eventually be deemed as nothing but a joke. Just like Creationism will be one day.

Sadly, its not terribly hard to understand why people would think the Earth flat - when they did. Today, its utterly bemusing to understand what crazy logic goes on in someones head in this age to warrant supporting ID.

Dogs/wolves/jackles/cayotes all illustrate that the human definition of species is irrelevant for practical genetics. If we create a definition that is based upon the ability to produce fertile young, not only do questions arise about geographic possibilities, but also ethically, who is going to try to mate a human with a chimpanzee? If we use a definition that is based upon appearance, we fail to grasp the depth of how things are related. The lack of a workable definition of species makes suggestions that something isn't a new species as laughable as saying that something is. These discussions all tend to rotate around this concept that a new species would be obvious to our eyes or our science, but that is clearly not going to be the case.

Completely agree with you on that one! The rather old (pre genetics) species meme still has some utility, but the devil is in the details. \

For instance someone somewhere says that domestic dog breeds have a maximum genetic variation of 0.2% (or 99.8% similarity).

For me the obvious question becomes, is this an objective metric, and if so how is it defined?

I've seen at least three metrics for genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees, all in the 90+ percentile range.

A genetic metric would seem to be a better classification system, but even there we need some definition for classification, an ability to interbreed on a wide scale perhaps?

hardeeharhar, I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts on this one!

we used to interbreed apparently http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ns-chimps.html

Evolution itself doesn't necessarily pose a threat to christianity, it is just that most people instantly associate 'evolution' with men coming from apes coming from dinosaurs coming from fish, from bacteria, from nothing; which is a threat to one of the most fundamental beliefs of it. The fact that micro-evolution like this happens, says nothing against the doctrines of Christianity.


ummm... that is the most terrible stereotype about Christians, and I have never met someone who acts like this. Christianity teaches men that they were created by an all-powerful god who loves them and cares for them, and if they love and worship him back, they will get infinitely rewarded... no groveling necessary.


Which means our entire existence is pointless. If you were to kill yourself right now and the above were true, then what would happen? Well, some close family and friends would be sad for a while, but the world would move on and basically no change would result of it. And even if the world did change, why would it matter, as you should only care about yourself in this situation, so if the world is completely decimated upon your death, it affects you in no way. So, there is no point to your life, and if you were to die right now, nothing would come of it. Many people do not like the prospect of their life being meaningless and turn to religion to make themselves feel better. If Christians are right, then the Christian is infinitely rewarded, but if you are right, then there is little to no loss. And after you die, what does this loss (if any) matter? NOTHING! Because you're dead, and with no afterlife, there are no consequences or benefits from your life. Too bleak of a 'future' for some to face, which makes it reasonable that Christianity and religion in general are so popular.

You just described the well known Placebo effect.


If it floats your boat then;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Because we all don't want Planet Earth to turn into Planet Berzerker;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Since once you all lose your various faiths, your various meanings of life, your various purposes of being, your various beliefs, all sorts of Hell on Earth will occur, because you'll easily kill off all the logical-rational-reasoning-sane people given your sheer numbers!

A couple of things.

I noticed the cartoon: no one, since the Greeks -- and I mean no one -- ever believed the Earth was flat -- there were disagreements as to the diameter, but that's it. When I see or hear the phrase flat Earth, it gets translated into "underread" -- not perhaps a very fair assessment.

So just look it up for heaven's sake, it's the ultimate urban myth. Really.


Now for the "evolution" of the butterfly -- the problem there is that it represents speciation -- and from Ken Hamm to Dick Dawkins -- no one has any sort of problem with this.

Read carefully: When Behe's latest book came out I took his arguments over to PZ Myers' web site to see how bulletproof Behe's observations were -- one important thing came to light: that no one serious about this discussion cares about speciation -- the holy grail will be seeing novel developments at a very rudimentary level, having to do with new proteins, or advantageous changes in existing proteins. And those sorts of changes, while theoretically possible have yet to be fully worked out, even on paper, but even if they were to occur, they would happen too slowly for anyone in living memory to notice -- for an evolutionist, the timescales are so large that, as a collective consciousness, we'd simply loose track of the changes.

PZ himself weighed in on this, as did many other very well-educated people. Even as the uber-fundie that I am, I saluted that sort of honesty: the evolutionists have their reasons, timelines, rates of change, etc. that are still doable [in their minds,] but it's very tentative, and pretty much held in place by their interpretation of the fossil record.

But this butterfly thing just isn't on anyone's radar --it's smoke and mirrors for big-picture magazines like National Geographic and the chattering class.

well then my little antipode, let me travel down my wormhole to a hundred years in the future and predict what dmz circa 2107 is saying...

"I noticed the hologram: no one, since the 12th Century Muslims -- and I mean no one -- ever believed in Intelligent Design -- There were disagreements as to the mechanics of macroevolution, but that is it. when I see or hear the phrase "Intelligent Design" ......"


keep it coming! its fun to have a live one to assess mental states from time to time

It was certainly known to be spherical by different peoples at different times;

Flat Earth

Beginning with the Greeks, the Islamic world starting in the 9th century, and ending with the Chinese in the 17th century.


So it doesn't appear that a spherical Earth wasn't common knowledge to everyone from the Greeks onward.

But the main point is that the "flat earth" is what a youngster would assume until told otherwise from "trusted sources," and that the "flat earth" is just a simple metaphor to relate the relative strength of evolutionary theory versus ID.

Also, IMHO the term "evolution" is thrown around very loosely or overused in both the MSM and scientific literature.

I don't claim to be a SME by any means WRT evolutionary theory, but it has become quite clear to me that drastic changes in Earth's climate (volcanism, plate tectonics, impacts, atmospheric changes, temperature extremes, invasive species, population bottlenecks, etceteras) have caused numerous mass extinction events;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

For instance I found The Shape of Life (originally aired on PBS in April 2002) to be highly informative. If you haven't seen it you should really give it a look. I do find Earth's geologic/climate history to be truly fascinating!

And no, a one page Science article isn't Earth shattering by any means, this thread had been dead for quite awhile until someone poked their head into it and made a "backpedalling" comment.

dont forget that like most things, some people know, but they are a relatively small group of higher educated types. The greek elite knew the world was spherical, but how many of them are they as a percentage of the population, and how many common folk still thought the world was flat?

franksargent and MarcUK:

The whole thing about the flat Earth is that I remember being told in public school, in no uncertain terms, that people in the "dark ages" believed the world was flat and Columbus risked all to prove the establishment wrong.

AFAIK that is (or was) a pretty standard line, at least in America.

Standard line, yes. True, no.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

And once Antarctica melts within the next decade (according to AG) we're all DOOMED! The continents will all drift over the edges!

[CENTER]
Abandon ship![/CENTER]

The Flat Earth in the cartoon above was a metaphor. Why is it that so many Christians have so much trouble with the concept of sybolism?

metaphors
parables
symbolic analogy

Try to understand those concepts, and you might actually start being able to understand the Bible!

A metaphor of what exactly? I have no problem with "sybolism" or symbolism or any other analogies so long as they are making a point that is somewhat clear. The point I am hearing from the flat earth pic. "If you believe that evolution is not how the human species, and many others, came to exist you are an idiot and may as well believe that the earth is flat (which it is not you dumb@$$)." And yes, I have a problem with that. Most people have a problem with being called stupid... And many on this forum have no problem calling people stupid. Then they sit back an wonder why someone might take offense when they do so. I wonder why?

No, no, no, no, no -- it's never, ever, been presented as a metaphor, it was always presented as fact -- as much fact as the Spanish Inquisition. That's how it became a embedded in the cultural lexicon.

No one is calling anyone stupid, individuals see the world differently, but are still able to cooperate, learn various skills, and can function with others faiths, provided that their faith differences are not at odds to the subject matter at hand (e. g. helping someone fix their flat tire).

I've now participated to several evolutionary (and ID) threads, most of the PO players positions are fairly well known. For me personally, most of the time I don't want to participate in the long debate format, I tend to be blunt, caustic, and most often sardonic.

All your knowledge, your beliefs were acquired from "trusted sources" primarily parents, then teachers and church leaders, then friends, and other "trusted experiences." For me science caught my eyes fairly early through looking at many astronomy books and reading thousands of science fiction books, then it was math, engineering research, and extensive time conducting experiments,

In closing, you need to give as good as you get, and never take it personally, which can sometimes be hard to do.

So perhaps the cartoon suggests that if one were to step back from one well founded scientific theory (evolution) that suggests we could step back from others (in this case planet formation as being spherical due to gravity).

It's a classic form of deconstructionism. \

I think the idea of a species as somewhat arbitrarily defined (as long as it IS defined) is okay as long as we don't continue to limit ourselves to concepts of this species and that species when it comes to the actual functional nature of the beasts.

When you look at the natural world from the view point of individual genes, we are significantly more related than if you look at it from the (wrong headed limited) species classification. A cat looks nothing like a human, but there are a small small number of genes products that have different functions between the two 'species.'


In other words, I think that we should probably abandon our classical species nomenclature as being an archaic (but somewhat useful) categorization, and in discussions of origins depend upon the more apt gene product/regulatory descriptors. At that level, it becomes clear that the species distinction is arbitrary, which is, ultimately, why we are still having this debate.

I'll be honest - Intelligent Design is Stupid. And in the context of Intelligent Design, its adherants are stupid.

That doesn;t mean i dont like certain people, or that I dont realise that they are intelligent in other ways, it's just that in the context of ID, 'Stupid' is the word.

It is stupid not because its not well thought out, not because its wrong to question the establishmant, but because it comes from the position of thoroughly misunderstanding the very alternative they propose as 'the' explanation.

The cartoons were calling people stupid -- but it's irrelevant. Those sorts of arguments are meant for mass manipulation, too keep each side loyal to the cause.

'Dem Yankees eat babies, y'hear?!

Thanks to the internet, though, reasonable people who are genuinely trying to find answers or even just trying to define the differences between the two sides can go to someone like PZ Meyer's site -- a guy who is probably the biggest loudmouth in the debate -- and even an uber-fundie like me can get a well-resoned answer.

The rest is misdirection. Look! Urban legend!!

There is an objective truth apart from people's feelings, and that truth is that creationism has the same scientific status as the flat earth. If one is a creationist, their feewings may be hurt and they may feel that others are calling them stupid, but one's feelings don't give one's beliefs any additional validity.

And what other purposes are there to cartoons, op-ed pieces, and disinformation? Bias with intent!

I can draw a picture or write a paper, but if no one else sees it, it's lost to the void as it were.

So now we get to the crux of the matter. Are you willing to listen to a very complex scientific position or do you want to live the simple life? And I don't mean you specifically dmz, since you do look very closely at the scientific position(s) IMHO. Honest skepticism is one of the founding principles of the scientific method. But to question the science without the opposing side DOING the science, thats a different matter, a moot point as it were.

And if no one is willing to do the science or prove the science, than all we are left with are our flawed human beliefs, the endgame there is not good, as human history shows! \

Even the ID movement lead by the DI (interesting use of words BTW, mirror image doubleganger and all) helps push the case FOR evolution, it keeps science honest, tests science, strengthens science, through ever increasing research and thoroughness.

It's begging the question as it were.

As long as the establishment is willing to listen, that is. At the moment, whatever DI is doing is happening in the trade press, and not in the scientific journals. I think though, that might be enough to keep them honest. Time and karma will be sure to play a role in the thesis, antithesis, synthesis game.


Also, a rip-off from the DI site:



Scientific American article

Many Americans believe that Columbus broke the flat earth idea. Americans need to pat themselves on the back at every opportunity. However, they should pat themselves on the back for their literary heritage, which influenced this warped interpretation of history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...und_to_voyages

Washington Irving was to blame.

watching Bush now ...

about to get on AirForce One, giving speech on gonzo



What a bozo.

That's interesting -- I laid out a geology textbook a while back that claimed Columbus and most people of his time calculated the circumference of the Earth by the declination of the star Canopus, and came up with a radically smaller number. 14,000 miles instead of 24,000, which is why he thought he could make it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy

Now you've piqued my interest!

Hydrostatics states that water (liquids which have only a vertically stable density gradient or uniform density) will be flat in a linear gravity field (which a good approximation up to about 100 meters for the Earth).

And having done a fair amount of DGPS surveys (and general surveying for 35 years off and on) on ocean going cargo ships in entrance channels (ship squat in confined shallow water), I'm very familiar with the Earth's geoid;


NAD27, NAD83, NAVD88, NGVD27, MLW, MLLW, MHW, MHHW, MSL, state datums, etceteras.

And you wonder why some people thought the Earth was flat?

this is great!

it shows that what Science discovers takes about 2000 years for religious fundie types to catch up with.

Perhaps the downfall of ID wont happen till 4000AD. Bummer, just think how many of us evolutionists you will have had time to have up Artmans tree by then.

I usually stay out of the endless Creation vs. Evolution vs. ID threads here, but this is too ironic to pass up.

Marc, have you ever actually read Columbus' journals? You know, the ones where he says how he felt the Holy Spirit calling him to go out and guiding him on his voyages of discovery?

errrr..... that sounds like a technical screwup to me. IIRC (and I've slept since then) -- apparently Canopus wobbles, and that produced the screwup.

Kinda like sending a probe to Mars with English/Metric unit issues.

i very much doubt canopus wobbles to such an extent that it would screw up any measurement from Earth that depended on it.

However there is the possibility that it is orbited in 3 seconds by a super puffed up fluffy ball of cotton wool that miraculously maintains gravitational integrity - which might throw off readings somewhat.

You might be interested to learn that Canopus is one of the stars of the great Argo-Navis constellation, or Noah's Ark to you.

Anyway, isn't it time for a meow?

Yes, I understand he was reading the rig vida at the time, probably guided by the heile spirit.

psychologically, any reflection of a successful journey is usually attributed to a guiding spirit of God, because the seeker subconsciously elevates himself into a position of grandeur nearing equality of a Godlike figure because of the pride within himself for overcoming a difficult situation.

I do it all the time!

Well that tears it, mister! I'm digging that bad boy out of the archives.






Seriously, I'll check out that Canopus thing, and get back to you -- I've piqued my own interest.