Most Disturbing Column I've Read in a Long, Long Time

[thebeave]

I don't even know where to begin on this one. All I can say is :wide:


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12329662.htm

[NottyImp]

Needs registration.

[Kentish]

Needs registration.

http://www.bugmenot.com/

EDIT:
I don't know how much you're allowed to quote in these things, but here are some of the worst snippets:


If, for example, we are told a forest is uninhabited and, while walking in it, come across a garden, with plots of tomatoes, beans, corn and cabbage, reason tells us someone lives here. The garden presupposes the existence of a gardener, for it reflects intelligent design.



But from common sense and experience, when, ever, has an explosion created order? Explosions destroy. And if the big bang was due to an explosion, where did the chemicals come from? And who lit the firecracker that caused the Big Bang?



As a wag has put it, to believe an explosion created an ordered universe is like believing a hurricane roaring through a junkyard can create a fifth-generation computer.



Where are the missing links between lower and higher forms? Where are the intermediate forms? Why are they not everywhere?



does not the existence of these natural laws imply the existence of a lawmaker?

[NottyImp]

PATRICK J. BUCHANAN is a syndicated columnist.

I can think of many other things he might be "syndicated" as, as well. Awful stuff.

[RawData]

Good old Pat "asshat" Buchanan. Right, Evolotion is going down... In your dreams!
RD

[Sven]

I don't know how much you're allowed to quote in these things, but here are some of the worst snippets:
I'll kill the next one who calls the Big Bang an "explosion". :mad: :angry:

Unfortunately, even Randi does so.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I'll kill the next one who calls the Big Bang an "explosion". :mad: :angry:
Well, I've recently seen it called a "Cosmic Fart" in this thread:
LINK (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2607825#post2607825) :D

[Kentish]

I'll kill the next one who calls the Big Bang an "explosion". :mad: :angry:

Unfortunately, even Randi does so.

Well, it's a popular way of getting a complex concept across I guess.
Problem comes when people start taking it literally.

[ZikZak]

Well, it's a popular way of getting a complex concept across I guess.
Problem comes when people start taking it literally.

A common problem, it seems, with popular ways of getting complex ideas across.

[CanoeMan]

That article should come with a warning label:
CAUTION: MAY CAUSE STUPIDITY
I mean, the "an explosion never created order" argument is theweakest argument I've ever heard.

[chriswithstix]

i read the whole article before i noticed it was pat buchanan. i kept saying to myself, what a nut, then i said, oh it's just THAT nut.

the problem with the watchmaker arguement is that you can always find the watchmaker and ask if he/she made watch. you don't have to suppose anything. with the garden example, you can compare the design with other garden designs and see that it was probably a person that did it. we have no other universes to compare this one to, so we can't assume we know that it was designed by our standard of what makes things designed. it isn't the same. i've heard mt. rushmore as an example too, be we have pictures of people making it. the only "snapshot" of god creating the universe is the bible, which we wrote.

[Spanish_Inquisitor]

Here's a link (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7359) to the same article that does not need registration.

SI

[Karalora]

the problem with the watchmaker arguement is that you can always find the watchmaker and ask if he/she made watch. you don't have to suppose anything. with the garden example, you can compare the design with other garden designs and see that it was probably a person that did it. we have no other universes to compare this one to, so we can't assume we know that it was designed by our standard of what makes things designed. it isn't the same. i've heard mt. rushmore as an example too, be we have pictures of people making it. the only "snapshot" of god creating the universe is the bible, which we wrote.

Notice that the reader is always asked to examine the designed object--the garden or watch or ground-glass lens--in comparison with surroundings that are not designed--a wild forest or desert or beach...but the purpose of the analogy is to convince us that the forest and desert and beach themselves are designed.

So which is it?

[judanne]

I'm pretty sure that Pat knows his argument doesn't have to be very strong, or even accurate to be convincing to a crowd that doesn't even have a good understanding of simple scientific concepts, let alone anything related to astro or particle physics. My questions are, does Pat deliberately misrepresent or is he just intellectually incapable of understanding or lazy or both?

[Plognark]

Argh! The stupid, it burns! :banghead:

[Roland98]

A Solomonic solution. Let parents choose between having their kids spend a year in biology class cutting up those poor frogs and being indoctrinated in evolution ideology -- or a year studying the Old and New Testaments as the greatest book of Western civilization and literature, and the basis of morality and ethics. As they say, freedom of choice.

I'm with the OP: :eek:

[chriswithstix]

Notice that the reader is always asked to examine the designed object--the garden or watch or ground-glass lens--in comparison with surroundings that are not designed--a wild forest or desert or beach...but the purpose of the analogy is to convince us that the forest and desert and beach themselves are designed.

So which is it?

i think the point of asking the reader for that comparison is to say, "see how nicely everything fits and works together, just like a watch?" if you are starting from the assumption that everything IS designed, then comparing it to something that is, in fact, designed, becomes an easy leap to make. that argument sounds like an affirmation to someone that is already convinced.

[chriswithstix]

btw kentish, thanks for the bugmenot link. i will be abusing it from now on. i end up skipping a lot of the links in the news section of the main site because i don't want to register with every local paper in the country. i understand why they want it, and it's for the same reasons that i refuse to use loyalty cards at supermarkets and quick pass cards at gas stations. anyways, thanks

[someotherguy]

A Solomonic solution. Let parents choose between having their kids spend a year in biology class cutting up those poor frogs and being indoctrinated in evolution ideology -- or a year studying the Old and New Testaments as the greatest book of Western civilization and literature, and the basis of morality and ethics. As they say, freedom of choice.

Does Pat want every science-related company in this country to move elswhere? Why does he hate America? :(

[chriswithstix]

actually, parents already have that choice, and it's called home schooling. and the few people that i know that have home schooled did it for exactly this reason. i'm just glad that my tax dollars didn't pay for it.

[Prof]

Just read it.

Holy sh*t what a big ignorant f*ckwad.

*ahem* Straightens tie.

Yep, that's Pat B. fer ya....

[thebeave]

I'm with the OP: :eek:

Just a nitpick: I went :wide: , not :eek: . It's all good, though...

[rickP]

The same is true of our universe. Not until recent centuries did we discover that the Earth is not its center but, with the other planets, revolves with mathematical precision around the sun.

What does he mean by mathematical precision? It does what it does. The distance from the sun is not constant. The fact that we can determine the variance doesn't make it designed. That's just observation. That's like being amazed that 2+2=4...every time. Wow, it must be designed that way.

This is just a rehashing of several tired old fallacies...and not even very good at that.

[MarcoPolo]

That's like being amazed that 2+2=4...every time.

Slow down there Rick. Two plus two equaled four when I was in grade school. Are you telling me it still equals four? Holy crap! Quick! Where can I get my sins forgiven?!?!

[Roland98]

Just a nitpick: I went :wide: , not :eek: . It's all good, though...

:p You are totally correct. I didn't even realize we had that smiley...

[Spanish_Inquisitor]

actually, parents already have that choice, and it's called home schooling. and the few people that i know that have home schooled did it for exactly this reason. i'm just glad that my tax dollars didn't pay for it.
They don't even need to be home schooled. Just continue studying biology in school like it's always been done, and get your bible indoctrination at Sunday school and church like it's always been done. Why insist that things need to change?

SI

[Hyndis]

On another note, in the same paper on the same day and even on the same page, there's a Mercury News editorial on the whole ID/evolution thing. And the SJMN gets it right. :thumbs:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12329659.htm

[thebeave]

On another note, in the same paper on the same day and even on the same page, there's a Mercury News editorial on the whole ID/evolution thing. And the SJMN gets it right. :thumbs:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12329659.htm

Hey neighbor! :wave: I saw that other article too, and was happy to see that it was pretty well written. I seriously thought about posting the link to that article too, but it slipped my mind. I guess I was fuming so much about Pat's article that I got distracted.

[judanne]

Originally Posted by Pat Buchanan
A Solomonic solution. Let parents choose between having their kids spend a year in biology class cutting up those poor frogs and being indoctrinated in evolution ideology -- or a year studying the Old and New Testaments as the greatest book of Western civilization and literature, and the basis of morality and ethics. As they say, freedom of choice.

If only that freedom of choice had the cultural repercussions it so richly deserves..."god bless you, would you like fries with that?"

[ZikZak]

I suggest we teach both theories of origins in Sunday School, so that kids can weigh the evidence and decide for themselves.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I suggest we teach both theories of origins in Sunday School, so that kids can weigh the evidence and decide for themselves.
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[ZikZak]

Thanks! :)

[Atheos]

...
the only "snapshot" of god creating the universe is the bible, which we wrote.Just a minor nitpick, the bible is not the only creation myth we have available. Hindu faith posits a very different myth as do many other religions.

http://home.comcast.net/~iiatheos/Atheos-Sig.gif

[g-21-lto]

They don't even need to be home schooled. Just continue studying biology in school like it's always been done, and get your bible indoctrination at Sunday school and church like it's always been done. Why insist that things need to change?

SI
Because the religion of evolutionism is invading our supposedly "secular" public schools, that's why.

:banghead:

[chriswithstix]

Just a minor nitpick, the bible is not the only creation myth we have available. Hindu faith posits a very different myth as do many other religions.

http://home.comcast.net/~iiatheos/Atheos-Sig.gif

you got me there, good answer. my point could carry over to those examples as well though since they too would have to have been done after the fact, rather than during. as opposed to being able to report it live...

[chriswithstix]

They don't even need to be home schooled. Just continue studying biology in school like it's always been done, and get your bible indoctrination at Sunday school and church like it's always been done. Why insist that things need to change?

SI

i agree with that part, i was just saying that the folks i know that home schooled were because of their beef with science. it gave them the oppertunity to leave out and de-emphasize the stuff they didn't agree with.

[judanne]

Because the religion of evolutionism is invading our supposedly "secular" public schools, that's why.

:banghead:

Surely you jest.

[buckshot23]

I'll kill the next one who calls the Big Bang an "explosion". :mad: :angry:

Unfortunately, even Randi does so.
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/biolink/
That biology book refers to it as an explosion.
About 10 to 20 billion years ago, an enormous explosion
likely marked the beginning of the universe.
With this explosion began the process of evolution, which
eventually led to the origin and diversification of life on
earth.

[show_no_mercy]

A biology book? Since when does biology deal with cosmology?

The Big Bang is an explosion in the same manner that the bread rising in my oven is an "explosion"

[Coragyps]

That biology book refers to it as an explosion.
Hmmm. Maybe they should stick closer to biology in the next edition, huh?

[buckshot23]

A biology book? Since when does biology deal with cosmology?

The Big Bang is an explosion in the same manner that the bread rising in my oven is an "explosion"
Tell them that! I am only reading it. :huh:
They seem to be linking the big bang and abiogenesis with evolution too!

[Autonemesis]

That article should come with a warning label:
CAUTION: MAY CAUSE STUPIDITY
I mean, the "an explosion never created order" argument is theweakest argument I've ever heard.

Explosions are very orderly processes. With a given amount of explosive, and a given environment for the reaction to proceed, the results are utterly predictable. The crater will be circular, and of a certain depth. The same amount of material will be ejected the same distance and in the same pattern. The shock wave propagates in a well-ordered manner. No one has ever observed an explosion shock wave travelling towards the detonation site, for example. If explosions were chaotic, sometimes the shock wave would propagate that way,

[Albion]

Well, I hope physicists are beginning to realise that these people aren't just attacking biology. To them, all science that doesn't start off with "In the beginning, God created..." counts as Godless evolution whether it's physics, biology, geology, or anything else.

I'd like to see him in a debate with Charles Krauthammer or George Will over this topic. He must know that evolution isn't the sole province of the Godless Left.

[PaperCut]

Does Pat want every science-related company in this country to move elswhere? Why does he hate America? :(

On one hand, Kansas has been trying for years to attract Pharmaceutical and biotech companies to come and invest in the state. On the other hand, the state's board of education just recently approved a draft (which was written by proponents of ID) of science standards that questions validity of evolution. :banghead:

A big argument for introducing Intelligent Design into public schools' science classes is that we need to teach the controversy, that we need to give the children the opportunity to hear all the ideas out there.

I'm not ganna get into the flaws of this arguement, but if that's what really this is about, then we should really start teaching Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc... in our Sunday schools. After all, the controversy over whose god is real is much bigger (and bloodier) than Evolution-Creationism so called controversy.

What would religions do without hypocrisy! :down:

[buckshot23]

On one hand, Kansas has been trying for years to attract Pharmaceutical and biotech companies to come and invest in the state. On the other hand, the state's board of education just recently approved a draft (which was written by proponents of ID) of science standards that questions validity of evolution. :banghead:
Hmm. I have asked this elsewhere but maybe you guys could actually give me an answer. What has the belief and acceptence of darwinism contributed to advancements that actually help people? How would belief that God created all life on this planet stop a drug from being discovered?

[Hyndis]

What has the belief and acceptence of darwinism contributed to advancements that actually help people?

Hmm...I dunno...this is a tough one...

How about modern antibiotics? :Cheeky:

The stuff discovered in the 1930's only works for so long. You can still use it today, but its a heck of a lot less potent today than it used to be. Without an understanding of evolution it would be a lot more difficult to keep producing new and potent antibiotics.

[buckshot23]

Hmm...I dunno...this is a tough one...

How about modern antibiotics? :Cheeky:

The stuff discovered in the 1930's only works for so long. You can still use it today, but its a heck of a lot less potent today than it used to be. Without an understanding of evolution it would be a lot more difficult to keep producing new and potent antibiotics.
That isn't because of the belief in evolution it is because of a practical problem antibiotics were and are still being modified out of necessity. How would the belief in God as creator hinder antibiotic development?

[Aegeri]

That isn't because of the belief in evolution it is because of a practical problem antibiotics were and are still being modified out of necessity. How would the belief in God as creator hinder antibiotic development?

The first part is that we know that bacteria can aquire mutations that give them characteristics that never existed before in nature, such as the ability to digest nylon and DDE (Man made chemicals). Therefore, when developing new antibiotics, including man made synthetic antibiotics we would know to expect that bacteria can and will develop resistance to the antibiotic (and in fact, this has already been established to happen experimentally).

Under an evolutionary model, it is therefore expected and would be completely anticipated that bacteria will be able to generate completely novel means of beating antibiotics.

Under a 'creationist' model however, this is an impossibility because according to most creationist rhetoric I've read 'no new genetic information' can be created. As a result, creationists would fail to appreciate the ability of bacteria to evolve new, novel characteristics and would probably end up wasting their antibiotics believing that bacteria couldn't evolve a new defence to a novel man made antibiotic (IE a novel mode of action not previously known to bacteria in nature).

Additionally if we're simply talking about 'antibiotic' development then evolution is the better model overall to begin with. It actually provides an explanation that has both predictive and testable power. Neither is present under the model creationists propose.

[buckshot23]

Under a 'creationist' model however, this is an impossibility because according to most creationist rhetoric I've read 'no new genetic information' can be created. As a result, creationists would fail to appreciate the ability of bacteria to evolve new, novel characteristics and would probably end up wasting their antibiotics believing that bacteria couldn't evolve a new defence to a novel man made antibiotic (IE a novel mode of action not previously known to bacteria in nature).

Additionally if we're simply talking about 'antibiotic' development then evolution is the better model overall to begin with. It actually provides an explanation that has both predictive and testable power. Neither is present under the model creationists propose.
So creationists would just scratch their heads and say Hmm, why aren't these antibiotics working anymore? Then let mankind be wiped out by these bacteria? I don't think so. Developing resistence is not contrary to what creationists believe so would not be a hurdle in producing new antibiotics. I see it as a practical observation that antibiotics stop working over time and they are adapting to counteract it thus new antibiotics would need to be developed. Unless you stick to the immutable species creationist strawman.

[RBH]

Hmm. I have asked this elsewhere but maybe you guys could actually give me an answer. What has the belief and acceptence of darwinism contributed to advancements that actually help people? How would belief that God created all life on this planet stop a drug from being discovered?Evolutionary Medicine (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195103564/internetinfidels/)New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. Describes approaches to human health based on evolutionary history. Shows how evolution helps to explain the complex relationship between our immune systems and the virulence and transmission of human viruses. For students and researchers in medicine, anthropology, and psychology. Softcover, hardcover also available.Evolution and the Origins of Disease (http://www.direct-ms.org/articles/Evolution-OriginsOfDisease.pdf)

Evolutionary Medicine links (http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/courses/darmed/links.htm)

There are 9,910 more hits on Google for "evolutionary medicine".

From PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15736177&query_hl=1)Issues in evolutionary medicine.

Stearns SC.

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8160, USA. stephen.stearns@yale.edu

This paper illustrates the utility of applying evolutionary thought to medical issues with three examples: selection arenas, aging, and tradeoffs. First, the human female reproductive tract functions as a selection arena at two levels: in the ovaries, where atresia reduces the number of oocytes by more than 99.99% before any are ovulated, and in the uterus, where early embryos homozygous for immune genes are spontaneously aborted. These selective filters early in life have implications both for eugenics and for the anti-abortion movement. Second, the evolutionary theory of aging predicts that intrinsic mortality should reflect extrinsic mortality: if life for adults is risky, then it does not pay to invest in maintenance at the expense of reproduction. This idea is well confirmed, at least in populations where density effects are not important. While only organisms that reproduce asymmetrically should age, even bacteria reproduce asymmetrically, and they do age, suggesting that all organisms reproduce asymmetrically and therefore age. Third, tradeoffs are central to theories of phenotypic design, but the mechanisms that cause them remain obscure. A method is suggested to get at the mechanisms of tradeoffs by examining conflicts among functions over gene expression. It could be applied in humans to the tradeoff between reproductive performance and disease resistance. Copyright 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Syllabus for a course in Evo Medicine (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/kdorfman/Biol100/syllabus2.html)

I might add that a non-trivial enabler of the evolution of antibiotic resistance is ignorance of evolution. When people stop taking their antibiotics because they feel better, rather than taking the full course, they're providing a selective environment for the evolution (there's that word again) of drug-resistant bugs. Over-prescription by evo-ignorant physicians is another contributor. Widespread use of antibiotics in food animals (cattle, pigs, chickens) to increase growth rates has led to the evolution of several strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria which, through horizontal gene transfer, have apparently passed their resistance on to bacteria that humans can get sick from, sometimes fatally sick. Ignorance of evolution can actually kill people.

Some applications (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#examples) of genetic algorithms -- computer models of evolutionary processes. I have used GAs in business myself for 15 years.

RBH

[Aegeri]

So creationists would just scratch their heads and say Hmm, why aren't these antibiotics working anymore? Then let mankind be wiped out by these bacteria? I don't think so.

But you see, they wouldn't know why that is the key thing. Under their 'model' it shouldn't occur at all that bacteria have the ability to develop entirely NOVEL systems for evading antibiotics.

Developing resistence is not contrary to what creationists believe so would not be a hurdle in producing new antibiotics.

You've missed the word 'novel' several times I see. I've used that very deliberately.

I see it as a practical observation that antibiotics stop working over time

Depending entirely on strain, where the organism normally lives, what kind of cell wall it has and importantly: It's evolutionary position for horizontal transfer of genes. Plus the general ecology the organism experiences.

Incidently, some organisms have been treated with the same antibiotic for years and not become resistant such as Streptococcus pyogenes while others have adapted to live in sceptic tanks like Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Only by understanding why and how bacteria evolve can you determine why this is the case, but then again:

You profess that creationists would have an answer. You are a creationist.

Explain using a creation model, why one organism is non mutable yet the other seems massively malleable.

A) Verify, using a creationist model, how you would experimentally determine why one organism can rapidly adjust to living in antisceptic tanks yet the other can't even develop simple resistance to penicillin.
B) Without using evolution or evolutionary mechanism (this is a 'creation' model here..) explain how Pseudomonas aeruginosa has become the most significant pathogen of cystic fibrosis patients in less than 30 years, but has never been known to infect CF patients until recently.

and they are adapting to counteract it thus new antibiotics would need to be developed. Unless you stick to the immutable species creationist strawman.

No: I'm sticking to the creationist 'no genetic information' idiocy which isn't a strawman it's what they profess all the time (not that it isn't a meaningless idea to begin with).

Once again, the point is that Natural Selection combined with the mutations/recombination that bacteria can do easily accounts for antibiotic resistance to novel agents. This has already been established experimentally. Evolutionary models explain this brilliantly. Creationist models FAIL because to develop resistance against novel antibiotics requires novel, as in entirely new and never seen before genes that never existed before in nature.

Note the meaning of novel:

nov·el2 adj.
Strikingly new, unusual, or different. See Synonyms at new.

As I said, I used the word for a reason.

[dmarker]

Explosions are very orderly processes. With a given amount of explosive, and a given environment for the reaction to proceed, the results are utterly predictable. The crater will be circular, and of a certain depth. The same amount of material will be ejected the same distance and in the same pattern. The shock wave propagates in a well-ordered manner. No one has ever observed an explosion shock wave travelling towards the detonation site, for example. If explosions were chaotic, sometimes the shock wave would propagate that way,

I must ask: are you one of those people who demolish buildings by having them fall into themselves?

[dmarker]

So creationists would just scratch their heads and say Hmm, why aren't these antibiotics working anymore? Then let mankind be wiped out by these bacteria? I don't think so.


No, they would say it was God's Will that the antibiotics stopped working. And allow populations to die to send them to Heaven (if they are Christians of the right sort) or to Hell (if they are anybody else)


Developing resistence is not contrary to what creationists believe so would not be a hurdle in producing new antibiotics. I see it as a practical observation that antibiotics stop working over time and they are adapting to counteract it thus new antibiotics would need to be developed. Unless you stick to the immutable species creationist strawman.

Wouldn't adding resistance to bacteria be adding information?

So species can change but they can't have changed so much that an apish ancestor can produce humans and chimps?

[premjan]

Is man a local evolutionary minimum or pretty close to a global minimum?

[Justin Z]

Notice that the reader is always asked to examine the designed object--the garden or watch or ground-glass lens--in comparison with surroundings that are not designed--a wild forest or desert or beach...but the purpose of the analogy is to convince us that the forest and desert and beach themselves are designed.

So which is it?
That is one of the best effing points I have ever heard.

[premjan]

At least Christians would merely be content if antibiotics stopped working. Muslims are more of the sort that would go out of their way to destroy antibiotics because it was not God's will for us to be able to control our own health.

[Sven]

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/biolink/
That biology book refers to it as an explosion.
So what? Is your point that because of this, the Big Bang really was an explosion, or is your point that I should go and kill the author of this biology book?

They seem to be linking the big bang and abiogenesis with evolution too!
Newsflash: There being a link does not mean that one is part of the other.

Hmm. I have asked this elsewhere but maybe you guys could actually give me an answer. What has the belief and acceptence of darwinism contributed to advancements that actually help people? How would belief that God created all life on this planet stop a drug from being discovered?
I remember a story about a creationist doctor who refused to accept the common ancestry of humans and chimps and because of this refused to take a chimp heart (? maybe it was another organ) for a transplantation to save the life of a kid (at least temporarily). Needless to say, the kid is dead now. Maybe someone remembers what I'm talking about and can provide more details and/or a reference.

[Sven]

Is man a local evolutionary minimum or pretty close to a global minimum?
:huh: This does not make the slightest sense. There is no such thing as a (global) minimum in evolution, since the fitness always depends on the environment.

[premjan]

Fitness depends on the environment, but...assume that within the chemical limitations of carbon that we have an environment with enough of chemicals, water, energy etc. Surely there is still enough constraint to produce a few high-survival organisms. Bacteria would probably be one minimum under these conditions. Then there might be a very large organism, like a whale or dinosaur. Also there could be an omnivore intelligence like a man. I wonder if anyone has tried a simple simulation using some standard assumptions for cellular metabolism etc.

[Sven]

Fitness depends on the environment, but...assume that within the chemical limitations of carbon that we have an environment with enough of chemicals, water, energy etc.
Sorry, but the point is that we simply can not define "enough". Organisms on Earth get along quite fine with entirely different quantities of "chemicals, water, energy etc.".

Surely there is still enough constraint to produce a few high-survival organisms.
What is a " high-survival organisms"? An organism which can live in very different environments? An organism such well adapted to its environment that it happily lives on for geological timespans without changing into a "new" organism? Or the opposite, an organism which can adapt quickly to different environments?

This comment strangely looks like the ladder-type evolution we all (should) know is flat out wrong.

Bacteria would probably be one minimum under these conditions.
You use a quite broad brush, do you? Do you understand how many species of bacteria are around? Do you understand that it doesn't make the slightest sense to compare thousands of species (bacteria) to one species (humans)?

[snip rest because it didn't make any sense]

[premjan]

I wonder whether we could not simulate the essential features of evolution in this manner though. Possibly someone has done this.

[OneWayTraffic]

I'll have a crack at Buckshot's question. Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. It links and unifies all biological science. It tells us why. "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." So the real question is not whether evolution is useful but whether biology is useful. Seperating the two is impossible.

[Alias]

In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.

[Edited for copyright from: www.theamericancause.org ]

Once again, Evolitionary Biology is being viewed as a religion. :confused:


Alias, did you miss the bit that said Copyright © 2005, The American Cause. All Rights Reserved

[IanC]

Originally Posted by buckshot23
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/biolink/
That biology book refers to it as an explosion.

BWAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!

Not directed at you, buckshot, aimed squarely at the book.

I wonder if anyone has tried a simple simulation using some standard assumptions for cellular metabolism etc
What sort of simulation? I ask because depending on what you actually want, I might have a crack at it, or may have already made it (well, a lot of it). Or Avida might be what you want, Ill dig out a linky later.

Ian

[Asha'man]

Hmm. I have asked this elsewhere but maybe you guys could actually give me an answer. What has the belief and acceptence of darwinism contributed to advancements that actually help people? How would belief that God created all life on this planet stop a drug from being discovered?

In addition to providing a basis for all of biology, I should point out that you have no logical basis to test a drug on animals without the assumption of evolution.

If all species are separately created, rather than related, then there is no rational reason to believe that their biochemistry will operate in the same way as a human's will. Testing a drug on rats, for example, proves only that the drug works on rats, and generates no meaningful data for how the drug might behave in a human.

On the other hand, given an evolutionary tree of relatedness, we have a firm rational basis to believe that mammals will have a similar biochemistry to ourselves, and the degree of similarity is measurable and predictable. If a drug works on multiple species of mammals, it's quite reasonable to expect it to behave similarly with ourselves.

So, the entire modern drug industry is critically dependant on the assumption of evolution. Given the effectiveness of modern drugs, that seems to be a practical proof that the assumption is valid.

[rthearle]

Incidently, some organisms have been treated with the same antibiotic for years and not become resistant such as Streptococcus pyogenes while others have adapted to live in sceptic tanks like Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

What's its username?

Roy

[Sven]

I wonder whether we could not simulate the essential features of evolution in this manner though. Possibly someone has done this.
I'm not sure what you mean by "essential features of evolution", and "in this manner", but ever heard about AVIDA (google helps)?

[premjan]

AVIDA does look roughly of the right kind. Is it extensible so that new knowledge about biochemistry is incorporable? Apparently...The trick would be to have as complex an organism model as possible, and have a cellular model that permits enough parameters to simulate the cost-benefit components of any particular metabolism roughly.

[Sven]

Once again, Evolitionary Biology is being viewed as a religion. :confused:
(1) Copyright?!?
(2) http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133094

[Punc_E]

Is he saying God built Stonehenge?

[PaperCut]

At least Christians would merely be content if antibiotics stopped working. Muslims are more of the sort that would go out of their way to destroy antibiotics because it was not God's will for us to be able to control our own health.


Just like Christians, Muslims come many different sects and denominations. But having lived in a Muslim country for years I can tell you that many Muslims have no problem with Evolution or antibiotics, kind of like our Catholics.

[Hyndis]

Just like Christians, Muslims come many different sects and denominations. But having lived in a Muslim country for years I can tell you that many Muslims have no problem with Evolution or antibiotics, kind of like our Catholics.

Most Christians have no problems with evolution either. While the new pope isn't too keen on evolution, until he says otherwise the RCC's official position is still that evolution can coexist with Christianity just fine.

The problem is that there's an extremely vocal, well organized, and well financed minority thats trying to confuse the issue to get their literalist interpreation of their holy book endorsed by the state.

[the_cave]

Well, it's a popular way of getting a complex concept across I guess.
Problem comes when people start taking it literally.
Exactly. This is unfortunately scientists' own metaphors coming back around to bite them. Science needs (probably will always need) to be re-explained and re-interpreted for a non-scientific audience again and again. I mean, if you use the word "explosion" to describe the Big Bang to someone who is completely unfamiliar with cosmology, should you really be surprised if a) they take you seriously, and b) they assume you mean, you know, an explosion, like all the other explosions they've ever seen.

[buckshot23]

No, they would say it was God's Will that the antibiotics stopped working. And allow populations to die to send them to Heaven (if they are Christians of the right sort) or to Hell (if they are anybody else)
I suppose you have documentation to back that up? Or are you just demonstrating your bias against creationists?

[buckshot23]

So what? Is your point that because of this, the Big Bang really was an explosion, or is your point that I should go and kill the author of this biology book?
I saw your post and I happened to be reading that portion and thought of you.
Newsflash: There being a link does not mean that one is part of the other.
Newsflash: You need to lighten up.
I remember a story about a creationist doctor who refused to accept the common ancestry of humans and chimps and because of this refused to take a chimp heart (? maybe it was another organ) for a transplantation to save the life of a kid (at least temporarily). Needless to say, the kid is dead now. Maybe someone remembers what I'm talking about and can provide more details and/or a reference.
That would be interesting to see the documentation on that one.

[RBH]

Sven wroteI remember a story about a creationist doctor who refused to accept the common ancestry of humans and chimps and because of this refused to take a chimp heart (? maybe it was another organ) for a transplantation to save the life of a kid (at least temporarily). Needless to say, the kid is dead now. Maybe someone remembers what I'm talking about and can provide more details and/or a reference.I tried to track that one down once. It is around the Web that the transplant surgeon -- Leonard Bailey at Loma Linda in California -- who implanted a baboon's heart into "Baby Fay" in 1984 denied common descent when asked whyy he hadn't used a more closely-related chimp heart, but I was never able source it. I think it's an urban legend.

RBH

[show_no_mercy]

I suppose you have documentation to back that up? Or are you just demonstrating your bias against creationists?

Christian Science Practitioners are used to " help people through the false reality of illness." Instead, proper prayer and training are employed to battle the "non-reality" of illness. (The right of Christian Science parents to withhold medical treatment from their children has many times been challenged in court.)

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/science.htm

[Sven]

I saw your post and I happened to be reading that portion and thought of you.
So you agree that a biology book stating the Big Bang was an explosion has no merit? So you agree that taking my statement that I'll kill the next one is not necessarily to be taken literal ( :p ) ?

Newsflash: There being a link does not mean that one is part of the other.
Newsflash: You need to lighten up.
So you agree that there being a link does not mean that one is part of the other?

That would be interesting to see the documentation on that one.
Here you are: http://members.aol.com/darrwin/genesis.htm (starting with: "Finally, a (true) horror story.")
The source given there is 'a radio interview given by Bailey [the doctor I talked about] to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program "Health Report," hosted by Norman Swan, aired June 3, 1985.'
I misremembered some details, but the essence stays the same.

[Sven]

Sven wroteI tried to track that one down once. It is around the Web that the transplant surgeon -- Leonard Bailey at Loma Linda in California -- who implanted a baboon's heart into "Baby Fay" in 1984 denied common descent when asked whyy he hadn't used a more closely-related chimp heart, but I was never able source it. I think it's an urban legend.

Apparently it's true. See above.

[GreyGhost]

That would be interesting to see the documentation on that one.

Here is a link to that story. It is called the Baby Fae story. The girl needed a heart transplant and the surgeon used one from a baboon. She died shortly there after. When the surgeon was asked why he didn't use a chimp's heart since their DNA is closer to a humans, he said he didn't believe that because he didn't believe in evolution. He didn't think any creatures were related to each other since all creatures were created in their own special forms.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/genesis.htm#horror

[buckshot23]

Here is a link to that story. It is called the Baby Fae story. The girl needed a heart transplant and the surgeon used one from a baboon. She died shortly there after. When the surgeon was asked why he didn't use a chimp's heart since their DNA is closer to a humans, he said he didn't believe that because he didn't believe in evolution. He didn't think any creatures were related to each other since all creatures were created in their own special forms.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/genesis.htm#horror
Thats hardly documentation. Any news report?

[Ratel]

http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_2_1990/BabyFae.html

This journal looks fairly reputable, but caveat emptor.

[Sven]

Thats hardly documentation. Any news report?
Umm, did you happen to miss my post which explained there was a radio interview with the doctor?

[Oolon Colluphid]

There was a heap in the news at the time. It even made it into a Paul Simon lyric:
The boy in the bubble
And the baby with the baboon heart.

This site:
www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_2_1990/BabyFae.html
references it to Gould: 'The heart of erminology: What has an abstruse debate over evolutionary logic got to do with Baby Fae?', Natural History 1988;97:24.

Whether or not the guy (openly said he) did dismiss evolution, given the rejection problems likely with any transplant, it is extremely odd that someone who accepted evolution would not try for a heart from a more closely related species. Circumstantial evidence of antievolutionism, but fairly strong evidence. If he accepted evolution but went with a baboon anyway, he was pretty stupid.

[buckshot23]

Umm, did you happen to miss my post which explained there was a radio interview with the doctor?
Go grind your axe elsewhere.

[Sven]

Go grind your axe elsewhere.
Which of course perfectly addresses the fact that the doctor said so himself in a radio interview. You asked for documentation, I present it, you complain. Once again: *shrug*

[Oolon Colluphid]

Evolution, Vol 55 No.12 (2001)

Perspective: Evolution’s Struggle For Existence In America’s Public Schools

http://zoology.okstate.edu/zoo_fclt/lovern/antolin_herbers2001.pdf

Ethical and procedural questions aside, a troubling aspect
of the story is that Leonard Bailey, the lead surgeon for
Baby Fae’s operation,
when interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation (1985), admitted to being a fundamentalist.*
Bailey described how he chose baboons as donors
because their hearts were the right size and were available.
Furthermore he said, ‘‘The scientists that are keen on the
evolutionary concept that we actually developed serially from
subhuman primates to humans, with mitochondrial DNA dating
and that sort of thing, the differences have to do with
millions of years. That boggles my mind somehow. I don’t
understand it well, and I’m not sure that it means a great deal
in terms of tissue homology.’’


* The original broadcast was June 3, 1985, during the program
Health Report hosted by Dr. Norman Swan.

[Sven]

Evolution, Vol 55 No.12 (2001)

Perspective: Evolution’s Struggle For Existence In America’s Public Schools
[snip]
Hey, Oolon, "go grind your axe elsewhere". You won't make buckshot actually address the evidence, would you?

[Aegeri]

Which of course perfectly addresses the fact that the doctor said so himself in a radio interview. You asked for documentation, I present it, you complain. Once again: *shrug*
Chalk another prime example of ignoring his opponents arguments up to Buckshot :rolling:

[RBH]

Evolution, Vol 55 No.12 (2001)

Perspective: Evolution’s Struggle For Existence In America’s Public Schools

http://zoology.okstate.edu/zoo_fclt/lovern/antolin_herbers2001.pdf

Ethical and procedural questions aside, a troubling aspect
of the story is that Leonard Bailey, the lead surgeon for
Baby Fae’s operation,
when interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation (1985)That one I trust -- I know one of the authors, a careful and meticulous researcher.

RBH

[buckshot23]

Which of course perfectly addresses the fact that the doctor said so himself in a radio interview. You asked for documentation, I present it, you complain. Once again: *shrug*
Sven a radio interview heard by someone who recalls it is not exactly a very good source. There wasn't anything to examine in that source. :huh: Others have provided the source and I thank them. I was looking for a more complete source so I could see the entire story. Is that ok? At least now I have something to read.
Chalk another prime example of ignoring his opponents arguments up to Buckshot
Get lost. :wave: I'm not worth it remember?

[buckshot23]

That one I trust -- I know one of the authors, a careful and meticulous researcher.

RBH
So you didn't trust the first source either? Go figure. :wave: Sven

[Aegeri]

Get lost. :wave: I'm not worth it remember?

From the looks of things, you can't be bothered intelligently addressing anyones arguments from the way you tend to debate. I guess you don't regard bothering to make intelligent arguments to anyone here worth it :rolling:

[buckshot23]

From the looks of things, you can't be bothered intelligently addressing anyones arguments from the way you tend to debate. I guess you don't regard bothering to make intelligent arguments to anyone here worth it :rolling:
Document your claim in the other thread. :wave:

[Prof]

So you didn't trust the first source either? Go figure. :wave: Sven

Soooo...are you just going to ignore the info posted by Oolon, here....? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2623288&postcount=87)

....and concentrate instead on whatever seems easiest to dismiss?

Just curious.

Prof.

[buckshot23]

Soooo...are you just going to ignore the info posted by Oolon, here....? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2623288&postcount=87)

....and concentrate instead on whatever seems easiest to dismiss?

Just curious.

Prof.
I haven't read the more informative source yet. Point is I wasn't the only one who didn't really trust the first source and I got attacked for not doing so. Assuming RBH didn't trust the first source of course. I'm a creationist and the double standard is getting annoying.

[Sven]

Sven a radio interview heard by someone who recalls it is not exactly a very good source. There wasn't anything to examine in that source. :huh: Others have provided the source and I thank them. I was looking for a more complete source so I could see the entire story. Is that ok?
OK, thanks. I can (partly) agree with this. See, if you'd answered this way the first time, we could have saved outself two snarky posts.

However, I may point out that I presented the radio interview itself as the source, so that you can research it directly. I didn't present the recollection of the interview in this article as the source. IOW, I did what is expected from a reference: To reference the original "work", not some second-hand quotation of it.

[Sven]

So you didn't trust the first source either? Go figure. :wave: Sven
Hey, RBH, can we have your opinion on this?

You may note the reason why RBH trusted the second source: Because he knows one of the authors personally. If we would only use this kind of reasoning for determining the veracity of claims, we would get nowhere. So I think it isn't that obvious that RBH did not trust my source.

[Nat Rajan]

[Religion Started When?

When the first SCOUNDREL MET THE FIRST FOOL ! ! :notworthy

[Oolon Colluphid]

Soooo...are you just going to ignore the info posted by Oolon, here....? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2623288&postcount=87)
I imagine so. It seems bucky's got me on 'ignore' (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2622517#post2622517) for some reason. :huh:

[RBH]

I imagine so. It seems bucky's got me on 'ignore' (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2622517#post2622517) for some reason. :huh:He can't 'ignore' you, Oolon, at least not via the board software. Perhaps it's <edit> willful inattention.

RBH

[RBH]

Hey, RBH, can we have your opinion on this?

You may note the reason why RBH trusted the second source: Because he knows one of the authors personally. If we would only use this kind of reasoning for determining the veracity of claims, we would get nowhere. So I think it isn't that obvious that RBH did not trust my source.It was not that I didn't trust Sven's source; it's that I gained added confidence from the second because, as I remarked, I know one of the authors and the care that author takes with sourcing. That's not a necessary condition for trusting a source, but it lends added confidence when I cannot access the primary source, a copy of the recording itself. Multiple independent lines of evidence, in this case muliple independent descriptions of a primary source I can't myself access, add to one's confidence.

Contrast that with my remarks here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2626218#post2626218), where I have experience with a source (Royal Truman) who is not a trustworthy reporter of primary sources.

RBH

[buckshot23]

I imagine so. It seems bucky's got me on 'ignore' (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2622517#post2622517) for some reason. :huh:
Did someone just say something? :huh:

[Mageth]

Hmm. I have asked this elsewhere but maybe you guys could actually give me an answer. What has the belief and acceptence of darwinism contributed to advancements that actually help people? How would belief that God created all life on this planet stop a drug from being discovered?

This seems like a good place to point out the opposition to embryonic stem cell research which comes largely from conservative religion, an opposition primarily based on the religious premise that an embryo, a collection of cells, is a "human" (created by God) and thus such research violates God's commandment: "Thou shalt not kill"?