More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[carlo]

A few questions.

1) Am I a direct descendent of a:
a) mouse?
b) amino acid?
c) plankton?
d) yogi bear?
e) all the above
f) none of the above
g) maybe
h) dunno

regards,
carlo




carlo

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really think we should teach creationism in schools. My point was that if we did teach them side by side and really present the case for each, many more people would reject creationism than do now.

However, it is not the job of scientists to reconcile their theories with religious beliefs. That is for each individual to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with teaching both side by side is it implies that both ideas belong together. They don't. One is scientific and one is not. Comparing the two may be interesting for some, especially those of one or two particular religions among all the religions of the world, the forum for doing so shouldn't be a science class. That's simply inappropriate. It doesn't advance the study of science, which is what science class is about. Creationism isn't an aspect of science that needs to be refuted.

The proper forum for discussing such a thing would be a religion or philosophy class, or even a psychology or sociology class, where religious matters are or can be the proper subjects.

I'm put in mind of "feminist math." A lesbian friend of mine who was keen on all things feminist told me that mathematics was patriarchal and oppressive, and needed to be changed. "Why SHOULD 2+2 always be 4?," she said. (I'm not kidding here.) Why does there always have to be this hard, masculine answer. What about your feelings about things? Why don't they count?"

I was stunned. But I don't think the discussion of her ideas belonged in a math class. It wouldn't add a thing to the learning in that class. It wouldn't be a "contribution" benefitting us all, and useful to help expose our "prejudices" against the kind of math that was unjustifiably unpopular and being repressed by a patriarchal conspiracy. Of which you are undoubtedly a part. YES, YOU.

Regardless of what you think about certain subjects, there's no reason to just let our beliefs barge in everywhere and take over the floor. There are ample and correct places to discuss those things. By comparison, the place to discuss specific sciences are few, and should be respected and preserved. That's not stifling discussion or thought; it's just simple respect and concern for the learning process.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for anyone well versed in evolutionary theory. How did organisms move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many theories, but the one I like the best is that it originated when oragisms were not multicellular. If you take DNA and through it in to a jar full of bacteria, the bacteria will actually import the free floating DNA and incorporate it into their native DNA. Most of the time this causes problems, but sometimes it improves the fitness of the species. Before you know it, bacteria are actually creating mechanisms to grab DNA, then one day the meechinism messes up and shoots out DNA instead. Another bacteria grabs it, and now obtains the DNA encoding for the "faulty" mechanism as well. It's pretty simple actually. Evolution is nothing more than a mistake that got lucky. The mechanism for copying DNA can in some species create mutations every 1,000 base pairs. Some mistakes are bad and kill the organism, others don't do anything, and a small percentage actually help.

[IronUnkind]

"No they haven't.

Creationists have not gotten a single article raising any doubts whatseover about evolution published in any peer-reviewed journal."

Reading comprehension may not be your long suit, but I went to the trouble of using all caps just so a careless reader wouldn't misinterpret what I wrote. Here it is again, read aloud if you must:

"Creationists have actually raised some provocative questions which present a real challenge to SOME aspects of evolutionary theory."

How did you infer that I said the claims of creationists were worthy of academic publication? The very thrust of my post was that creationists present their arguments in such ridiculous terms that no one will take them seriously. Moreover, the nine-year old article which you linked doesn't even say what you think it says. Read again:

"Despite crying to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider creationist articles, they were unable to produce a single article that had been refused publication."

This says nothing about whether or not creationist articles have actually been published (though they probably haven't); it only refutes the claim that creationists had been discriminated against by academic publishers.

Your response, including the link to the anti-creationist website (a wealth of impartial information, to be sure), only reinforces the points I made in my post. If you believe that a good idea can't exist outside the pages of peer-reviewed journals, then one wonders why you are so fond of professional skeptic and writer of pet care books, Lenny Flank. What, couldn't find any James Randi links?

P.S. In case it wasn't clear, I'm no fan of creation-science. But I'm just as suspicious of their knee-jerk critics.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading comprehension may not be your long suit, but I went to the trouble of using all caps just so a careless reader wouldn't misinterpret what I wrote. Here it is again, read aloud if you must:

"Creationists have actually raised some provocative questions which present a real challenge to SOME aspects of evolutionary theory."

[/ QUOTE ]
My reading comprehension was fine in this case, and my answer stands: No they haven't.

Creationists have not presented a single real challenge to any aspect of evolutionary theory.

If you disagree, please name one.

[ QUOTE ]
How did you infer that I said the claims of creationists were worthy of academic publication?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whenever there's ever a real challenge to an aspect of current evolutionary theory -- whether brought forth by a Creationist or by someone else -- it will be published in a scientific journal.

[ QUOTE ]
The very thrust of my post was that creationists present their arguments in such ridiculous terms that no one will take them seriously. Moreover, the nine-year old article which you linked doesn't even say what you think it says.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you think I think it says? I linked to it to show that the reason Creationists haven't gotten any "real challenges to SOME aspects of evolutionary theory" published isn't because they've been unfairly discriminated against. It's because they don't have any.

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that a good idea can't exist outside the pages of peer-reviewed journals, then one wonders why you are so fond of professional skeptic and writer of pet care books, Lenny Flank.

[/ QUOTE ]
Plenty of good ideas exist outside the pages of peer-reviewed journals. Heck, Darwin himself published books instead of journal articles.

But in this day and age, if a legitimate "real challenge" to an aspect of evolutionary theory is discovered, someone will write it up for publication in a journal. Bet on it, even if you have to lay odds.

That's when it can be included in highschool science textbooks.

(I know you're not pushing for Creationism or Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes. But some people are. They don't understand that science textbooks summarize and report the findings published in the primary literature -- i.e., peer-reviewed journals -- not stuff from Dr. Dino's website.)

[carlo]

C'mon Maurile , answer my questions.

regards,
carlo

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
A few questions.

1) Am I a direct descendent of a:
a) mouse?
b) amino acid?
c) plankton?
d) yogi bear?
e) all the above
f) none of the above
g) maybe
h) dunno

[/ QUOTE ]
I like multiple choice questions.

I'll go with (d).

[carlo]

Good choice [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

regards,
carlo

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question for anyone well versed in evolutionary theory. How did organisms move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many theories, but the one I like the best is that it originated when oragisms were not multicellular. If you take DNA and through it in to a jar full of bacteria, the bacteria will actually import the free floating DNA and incorporate it into their native DNA. Most of the time this causes problems, but sometimes it improves the fitness of the species. Before you know it, bacteria are actually creating mechanisms to grab DNA, then one day the meechinism messes up and shoots out DNA instead. Another bacteria grabs it, and now obtains the DNA encoding for the "faulty" mechanism as well. It's pretty simple actually. Evolution is nothing more than a mistake that got lucky. The mechanism for copying DNA can in some species create mutations every 1,000 base pairs. Some mistakes are bad and kill the organism, others don't do anything, and a small percentage actually help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the concept of genetic mutation. That is the fundamental principle upon which evolution rests. My question has more to do with how could mutations account for a move from asexual reproduction to sexual.

Asexual reproduction produces two identical daughter cells from a single mother cell. I do not see a gradual series of small changes that can lead to genetically compatible sexual creatures when the basis for the change is random mutation and time.

Thanks for the reply though. It is something I have never heard.

I liked the chocolate answer better though [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Leroy Soesman]

Excellent reply. I proposed the theory before that certain parts of a complex mechanism might have been part of another whole before. But in the end I was always forced to say "I don't know". I did stumble across Darwin's Black Box, and learned about that complex system notion, never really found counter arguments however.

As for the boom i was talking about, I believe it is closest related to the Cambrian Explosion, but I cannot be sure, because the way I described it before, is how it was described to me.

Something else I wonder about is that generally in laboratory environments (or at least within the life span of one or several generations) you can only monitor change. However, you are not able to monitor the direction of that change. That is, you are not able to monitor whether that change will benefit the organism in the long run because of the short time span.

Therefore I wonder in what way you are able to deduce that what is observed is indeed reinforcement for the evolution theory, and how it implies that there has been growth in the evolution of the organism and not merely alteration.

(NaobisDad)