A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The word, by the way, is harelip, not "hair lip."

Thanks! I changed it so if I ever get the book reprinted it will be the correct spelling.

[peacegirl]

I'm changing subjects. I have no desire to discuss the eyes anymore.

The Trouble with Darwin

by KAS THOMAS

Like many others, I watched the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham with a queer mixture of awe and déjà vu. Who knew that 89 years later, we'd still be litigating the Scopes trial? As someone trained in the sciences, I find it horrifying that there are college-educated people in the U.S. (and around the world) who believe the earth is 6,000 years old; and yet at the same time, I have a certain amount of discomfort, myself, with evolutionary theory—not because it demeans the nobility of man or denies the Bible, or anything of that sort, but because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds. (Many physicists feel much the same way about quantum theory.)

It always amazes me that creationists do so litte research on Darwinism before attacking it. Darwin's theory is subject to some very legitimate scientific criticisms. Biologists are, by and large, painfully aware of the theory's shortcomings.

Darwin's landmark work was called The Origin of Species, yet it doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies). Almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.) The means by which new survival skills emerge is, at best, murky. Of course, we can't expect Darwin himself to have proposed detailed genetic or epigenetic causes for speciation, given that he was unaware of the work of Mendel, but the fact is, even today we have a hard time figuring out how things like a bacterial flagellum first appeared.

When I was in school, we were taught that mutations in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited. The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab. Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is great at explaining things like the loss of eyesight, over time, by cave-dwelling creatures. It's terrible at explaining gain of function.

It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs. (Of course, The Origin of Species is entirely silent on the subject of how life arose from abiotic conditions in the first place.) It doesn't explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids, or the rapid recovery (and net expansion) of the biosphere in the wake of at least five super-massive extinction events in the most recent 15% of Earth's existence.

Of course, the fact that classical evolutionary theory doesn't explain these sorts of things doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory. There's a difference between a theory being wrong and being incomplete. In science, we cling to incomplete theories all the time. Especially when the alternative is complete ignorance.

[Spacemonkey]

Cutting and pasting is not discussion, Peacegirl.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Darwin's landmark work was called The Origin of Species, yet it doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens

Shockingly, we have come a long way in the more than 150 years since, and speciation is, in fact, studied in detail

(and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

A straight-up lie.

Almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest,"

Another straight-up lie.

a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.)

Yet another straight-up lie.

Mendel, but the fact is, even today we have a hard time figuring out how things like a bacterial flagellum first appeared.

Misleading, at best.

When I was in school, we were taught that mutations in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited.

Misleading at best, and more than a little dishonest.

The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab.

True, but deliberately deceptive. No one ever said (or expected) that most mutations would be advantageous. Indeed, it would be shocking if that were the case.

Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is great at explaining things like the loss of eyesight, over time, by cave-dwelling creatures. It's terrible at explaining gain of function.

Another straight-up lie.

It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs.

Shockingly, we've come a long way in the past 150+ years. There is quite a bit of explanatory power in modern evolutionary theory regarding speciation rates.

(Of course, The Origin of Species is entirely silent on the subject of how life arose from abiotic conditions in the first place.)

Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Anyone familiar with the field would know that. Thus, the author is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive.

It doesn't explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids, or the rapid recovery (and net expansion) of the biosphere in the wake of at least five super-massive extinction events in the most recent 15% of Earth's existence.

It doesn't explain why I'm wearing a blue shirt instead of a red shirt, either. What's your point?

Of course, the fact that classical evolutionary theory doesn't explain these sorts of things doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory. There's a difference between a theory being wrong and being incomplete. In science, we cling to incomplete theories all the time. Especially when the alternative is complete ignorance.

Somewhat dishonestly worded, but not entirely false.

Of course, repeatedly lying about evolutionary theory, criticizing it for being incomplete (as if this is news?), and criticizing it for failing to explain things that are not in its perview is more than a little ... what's the word I'm looking for now? Dang, it's on the tip of my tongue!

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that peacegirl posted a "discussion article" written by someone who appears to understand nothing about the subject matter, or who is deliberately lying about it. (Or both.)

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks! I changed it so if I ever get the book reprinted it will be the correct spelling.

Now just correct the rest of it, too.

After you're done taking out all the mistakes, two words will be left in the entire work:

THE END

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm changing subjects. I have no desire to discuss the eyes anymore.

If you were to give an honest answer to the questions of "where did the photons at the eye from the Sun come from, that are there instantly after the Sun is turned on". That would possibly end the discussion, unless the answer is so outrageous as to provoke further comment about how wrong it is.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You know, I always thought the inverse square law was basic geometry applied to basic physics, but then I read about dem saggeh tittehs, and I was enlightened. This is how evil dies!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I changed it so if I ever get the book reprinted it will be the correct spelling.

Yeah otherwise it would look silly.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm changing subjects. I have no desire to discuss the eyes anymore.

The Trouble with Darwin

by KAS THOMAS

Like many others, I watched the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham with a queer mixture of awe and déjà vu. Who knew that 89 years later, we'd still be litigating the Scopes trial? As someone trained in the sciences, I find it horrifying that there are college-educated people in the U.S. (and around the world) who believe the earth is 6,000 years old; and yet at the same time, I have a certain amount of discomfort, myself, with evolutionary theory—not because it demeans the nobility of man or denies the Bible, or anything of that sort, but because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds. (Many physicists feel much the same way about quantum theory.)

It always amazes me that creationists do so litte research on Darwinism before attacking it. Darwin's theory is subject to some very legitimate scientific criticisms. Biologists are, by and large, painfully aware of the theory's shortcomings.

Darwin's landmark work was called The Origin of Species, yet it doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies). Almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.) The means by which new survival skills emerge is, at best, murky. Of course, we can't expect Darwin himself to have proposed detailed genetic or epigenetic causes for speciation, given that he was unaware of the work of Mendel, but the fact is, even today we have a hard time figuring out how things like a bacterial flagellum first appeared.

When I was in school, we were taught that mutations in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited. The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab. Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is great at explaining things like the loss of eyesight, over time, by cave-dwelling creatures. It's terrible at explaining gain of function.

It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs. (Of course, The Origin of Species is entirely silent on the subject of how life arose from abiotic conditions in the first place.) It doesn't explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids, or the rapid recovery (and net expansion) of the biosphere in the wake of at least five super-massive extinction events in the most recent 15% of Earth's existence.

Of course, the fact that classical evolutionary theory doesn't explain these sorts of things doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory. There's a difference between a theory being wrong and being incomplete. In science, we cling to incomplete theories all the time. Especially when the alternative is complete ignorance.

Oh, now you're going to copy pasta about evolution, are you?

Would you like us to explain everything wrong in the above copy pasta? It'll take a while!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if I ever get the book reprinted

The question now is, Why would you waste your time and money on a joke book? It was quite funny the way it was.

[davidm]

Wait, the Lone Ranger already did.

[Stephen Maturin]

Copyright violation by peacegirl. Film at 11.

Also, lol Kas Thomas. Seems ol' Kas is an expert on mental health as well as evolution. And vaccines, of course.

show spoiler

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, now you're going to copy pasta about evolution, are you?

Would you like us to explain everything wrong in the above copy pasta? It'll take a while!

But it fits, she was posting from a book written by someone who knew nothing about the subject of the book.

Now she's posting articles by someone who knows nothing about the subject of the article.

As far as what is wrong with the article, it starts at the beginning and goes to the end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

You know, I always thought the inverse square law was basic geometry applied to basic physics, but then I read about dem saggeh tittehs, and I was enlightened. This is how evil dies!

OMG, what ignorance!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I changed it so if I ever get the book reprinted it will be the correct spelling.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Yeah otherwise it would look silly.

So what. I catch spelling mistakes all the time in books. Stop trying to turn this trivial mistake into a mountain.

[thedoc]

Aliki singing 'Wake Me Up' | Week 6 Auditions | Britain's Got Talent 2013 - YouTube

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, what ignorance!

peacegirl, imagine this picture: an old man, with a thin frame and thinning grey hair, his buttocks virtually non-existent, and his pants cinched at his chest with an ancient grey belt. His scrotum is withered and pendulous, such that his testes occasionally skim the surface of the cold water in the terlet bowl, before beating their silent retreat. His colon has lost much of its former musculature, and its elasticity occasionally combines with the regular intake of fiber supplements to shake his very home with flatus. He does not hear it (because the ears are not sense organs), but he senses it, if only from the glares of his family members and guests.

But enough about Stephen Maturin, and back to the big discovery about old lady butts or whatever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now just correct the rest of it, too.

After you're done taking out all the mistakes, two words will be left in the entire work:

THE END

You are the poster child of a pseudo-intellectual!

Pseudo-intellectual - Encyclopedia Dramatica

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what. I catch spelling mistakes all the time in books. Stop trying to turn this trivial mistake into a mountain.

Yes, perhaps Lessans should have stayed in school long enough to learn how to spell, and a lot of other things, he wouldn't have needed to write his book, he would have been content to just hustle pool.

But I'm sure you are familiar with the principle, and if not hear it is, "little lie, big lie". and it certainly applies to Lessans book that has been almost completely rewritten by his daughter.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

You know, I always thought the inverse square law was basic geometry applied to basic physics, but then I read about dem saggeh tittehs, and I was enlightened. This is how evil dies!

You know what else? There will be substantially less homosexuality - which earlier in this thread peacegirl likened to crime, hatred, poverty and war - and far fewer fat chicks. Lessans didn't much care for the fat chicks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, imagine this picture: an old man, with a thin frame and thinning grey hair, his buttocks virtually non-existent, and his pants cinched at his chest with an ancient grey belt. His scrotum is withered and pendulous, such that his testes occasionally skim the surface of the cold water in the terlet bowl, before beating their silent retreat. His colon has lost much of its former musculature, and its elasticity occasionally combines with the regular intake of fiber supplements to shake his very home with flatus. He does not hear it (because the ears are not sense organs), but he senses it, if only from the glares of his family members and guests.

Poor guy, and just think you're not far away from being him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You know what else? There will be substantially less homosexuality - which earlier in this thread peacegirl likened to crime, hatred, poverty and war - and far fewer fat chicks. Lessans didn't much care for the fat chicks.

You are such a liar.

[Spacemonkey]

Are you going to do anything now other than insult people, Peacegirl?

Daddy would be so proud.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

His colon has lost much of its former musculature, and its elasticity occasionally combines with the regular intake of fiber supplements to shake his very home with flatus. He does not hear it (because the ears are not sense organs), but he senses it, if only from the glares of his family members and guests.

A young person once asked an older person why did flatulence smell the way it did, and the answer "That's so that deaf people can appreciate them too."

[Stephen Maturin]

Since I'm feeling all nostalgic -- a common state of mind for we withered, pendulous scrotumed, home-shaking flatused types -- here once again is davidm's glimpse into Golden Age married life.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what. I catch spelling mistakes all the time in books. Stop trying to turn this trivial mistake into a mountain.