Spinning off climate change discussion

[AE 87]

I will quote from the links I provided because you did not read them:


The is a difference between Mendelian genetics and population genetics.

There is a difference between neo-Darwinism and neo-Darwinian synthesis (aka modern evolutionary synthesis).

What part of "as used there" (ie in my link) is confusing? The scientists advocating the need for a new approach to evolution in the 21st century are not ignorant of the 20th. I would think that was obvious from my link.

Your, "But Wikipedia says ..." response doesn't impress me.

 

[DTGT]

What part of "as used there" (ie in my link) is confusing? The scientists advocating the need for a new approach to evolution in the 21st century are not ignorant of the 20th. I would think that was obvious from my link.

Your, "But Wikipedia says ..." response doesn't impress me.

Third Way is against neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, and creationism. Third Way's work is part of modern evolutionary synthesis. Modern evolutionary synthesis includes all the new research as it is reviewed and accepted.

We are in agreement, but disagreeing on the name for it. Third Way is trying to find a way to get the idea of evolution past religious firewalls by removing the words Evolution and Darwin from the name.

I agree with Third Way's goals but I disagree that the soft method is more effective at reaching the most people and releasing them from their mind-washed beliefs. I think shock is necessary to unfreeze the masses and get them to start questioning what they "know" and have been told.

Please note that Third Way is calling out neo-Darwinism, not neo-Darwinism synthesis.

 

[AE 87]

Third Way is against neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, and creationism. Third Way's work is part of modern evolutionary synthesis. Modern evolutionary synthesis includes all the new research as it is reviewed and accepted.

We are in agreement, but disagreeing on the name for it. Third Way is trying to find a way to get the idea of evolution past religious firewalls by removing the words Evolution and Darwin from the name.

I agree with Third Way's goals but I disagree that the soft method is more effective at reaching the most people and releasing them from their mind-washed beliefs. I think shock is necessary to unfreeze the masses and get them to start questioning what they "know" and have been told.

Please note that Third Way is calling out neo-Darwinism, not neo-Darwinism synthesis.

You're wrong. They are using Neo-Darwinism for the trajectory established by the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Your protest that their appeal for a new way is still the same way seems odd. It's clearly not the same science but I guess it would fall into the same ideology or faith, which was my point. I guess you're right; we agree.

 

[DTGT]

You're wrong. They are using Neo-Darwinism for the trajectory established by the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Your protest that their appeal for a new way is still the same way seems odd. It's clearly not the same science but I guess it would fall into the same ideology or faith, which was my point. I guess you're right; we agree.

I think they know the difference between the two terms (Neo-Darwinism vs Neo-Darwinian synthesis) and have been precise in their use. Nothing on their site suggests that they are misusing the terms as you suggest. I can only take them at their word.

 

[AE 87]

I think they know the difference between the two terms (Neo-Darwinism vs Neo-Darwinian synthesis) and have been precise in their use. Nothing on their site suggests that they are misusing the terms as you suggest. I can only take them at their word.

LOL. Yeah, working academics in evolutionary biology are concerned that most people and scientists think that a neo-Darwinism as you use it is the only alternative to creationism. That seems reasonable.

Wikipedia is not divinely inspired, and terms can be used in different ways. My last post refers to how most today use NeoDarwinism

 

[DTGT]

LOL. Yeah, working academics in evolutionary biology are concerned that most people and scientists think that a neo-Darwinism as you use it is the only alternative to creationism. That seems reasonable.

Wikipedia is not divinely inspired, and terms can be used in different ways. My last post refers to how most today use NeoDarwinism

I try to be very careful with how I use words, often checking primary sources for definitions. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it is often written by experts with sources cited. The modern usage of words often tends to be distorted by both ignorance and Conservatism. <==Please read this paper from 2004. Do not respond to it today. I think you are sharp enough to have seen all it speaks of; however, I caution that it is about 20 pages of solid text when printed in a readable font and it may take up to a month to fully digest.

The most recent casualty to ignorance is "Literally". Literally can mean either "not figuratively" or "figuratively". The meaning of the sentence: "He literally soiled his pants." has an unclear meaning now.

Conservatives have successfully changed the meaning of these words recently: patriot, values, states-rights, political-correctness, liberal, race-baiting (used to refer to the racists, now refers to those who oppose racists), racist, hate, partisan, class-warfare, elitism, entitlement (used to refer to aristocrats and their title to do/own/rule things, now refers to the non-rich expecting to receive the stuff we paid for), and the list goes on...

Welfare was developed to reduce the dependency of the common people on entitled people, now common people are entitled to welfare and it causes them to become dependent on the (previously known as entitled) rich. What an impressive meaning inversion that was!

The point of this post is that Conservatives are trying to poison the language well for Global Warming (changed by Conservatives to Climate Change) and Evolution.

 

[AE 87]

Repost

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I have been tied up with a heavy work schedule for the last couple of days and this is my first chance to get back to this thread. I confess that I may have to bow out of this conversation pretty soon. I am somewhat baffled that someone would find evolution to be in doubt. If that makes me some kind of "true believer" then so be it. But I have seen all the ear marks of evolution in the farming community with certain crops and I have read some reputable studies, backed by literally thousands of observations, that show that evolution is occurring among certain animal species. Where I am baffled is what appears to this layman to be an eagerness to throw out an entire theory because of somewhat minor adjustments gleaned from research that to me clarifies our understanding rather than refuting it. I remember watching a recording of a rather lengthy debate between Bill Nye and a proponent of creationism. I was repeatedly struck by how the proponent of creationism constantly changed categories of discussion to cast doubt on evolution. When he ran out of convenient ways to obfuscate he simply appealed to God's ability to confuse us by keeping certain things hidden. That did not strike me as very scientific.

 

[AE 87]

I try to be very careful with how I use words, often checking primary sources for definitions. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it is often written by experts with sources cited. The modern usage of words often tends to be distorted by both ignorance and Conservatism. <==Please read this paper from 2004. Do not respond to it today. I think you are sharp enough to have seen all it speaks of; however, I caution that it is about 20 pages of solid text when printed in a readable font and it may take up to a month to fully digest.

The most recent casualty to ignorance is "Literally". Literally can mean either "not figuratively" or "figuratively". The meaning of the sentence: "He literally soiled his pants." has an unclear meaning now.

Conservatives have successfully changed the meaning of these words recently: patriot, values, states-rights, political-correctness, liberal, race-baiting (used to refer to the racists, now refers to those who oppose racists), racist, hate, partisan, class-warfare, elitism, entitlement (used to refer to aristocrats and their title to do/own/rule things, now refers to the non-rich expecting to receive the stuff we paid for), and the list goes on...

Welfare was developed to reduce the dependency of the common people on entitled people, now common people are entitled to welfare and it causes them to become dependent on the (previously known as entitled) rich. What an impressive meaning inversion that was!

The point of this post is that Conservatives are trying to poison the language well for Global Warming (changed by Conservatives to Climate Change) and Evolution.

Okay, it seems that what my phone told me was a repost wasn't and that I deleted my reply to this post and replaced it with "repost." Sorry.

Anyway, I don't really know what your point in this post is. It seems like you're blaming your inability to understand a paragraph on an evolutionary biologist website on some vast right-wing conspiracy. Regardless, it seems that for you a discussion of science is enmeshed with your political ideology. This fits with why you react emotionally to the topic. While people who understand the scientific issues can discuss them rationally, people who cling to them by faith as part of their political ideology will need to suppress rational conversation.

As has been publicly admitted now, Liberals intentionally lie and deceive to achieve their political agendas, relying on the stupidity of the American people. Such they have also done with climate change and evolution. Apparently it's working with some.

 

[AE 87]

I have been tied up with a heavy work schedule for the last couple of days and this is my first chance to get back to this thread. I confess that I may have to bow out of this conversation pretty soon. I am somewhat baffled that someone would find evolution to be in doubt. If that makes me some kind of "true believer" then so be it. But I have seen all the ear marks of evolution in the farming community with certain crops and I have read some reputable studies, backed by literally thousands of observations, that show that evolution is occurring among certain animal species. Where I am baffled is what appears to this layman to be an eagerness to throw out an entire theory because of somewhat minor adjustments gleaned from research that to me clarifies our understanding rather than refuting it. I remember watching a recording of a rather lengthy debate between Bill Nye and a proponent of creationism. I was repeatedly struck by how the proponent of creationism constantly changed categories of discussion to cast doubt on evolution. When he ran out of convenient ways to obfuscate he simply appealed to God's ability to confuse us by keeping certain things hidden. That did not strike me as very scientific.

Let me try and be clear. There is NO coherent theory of evolution which does not fail to account for significant blocks of empirical data. The word evolution has simply become a label for "not God." I also saw the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate. I thought that they both lost.

As far as the so-called "ear marks" of evolution that you've seen, you need to distinguish evolution, as a theory of the origin of species, and adaptation, as a theory of how species accommodate to their environments. The issues leading significant academic evolutionary scientists to seek a "Third Way" are not minor. Experimental and observational data do not support the suggestion that random mutation and natural selection can account for biological diversity.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Experimental and observational data do not support the suggestion that random mutation and natural selection can account for biological diversity.

Since I am not a scientist but just someone who has always read on a wide variety of topics, tell me which part of of your statement I should understand to be not be true. Random mutation? Natural selection? On a related topic, how do you understand what happens with genetic modification?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

On a side note, do you think that people who want scientific explanations are somehow denying God in some way? I have always found that a curious interpretation.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Okay, it seems that what my phone told me was a repost wasn't and that I deleted my reply to this post and replaced it with "repost." Sorry.

Anyway, I don't really know what your point in this post is. It seems like you're blaming your inability to understand a paragraph on an evolutionary biologist website on some vast right-wing conspiracy. Regardless, it seems that for you a discussion of science is enmeshed with your political ideology. This fits with why you react emotionally to the topic. While people who understand the scientific issues can discuss them rationally, people who cling to them by faith as part of their political ideology will need to suppress rational conversation.

As has been publicly admitted now, Liberals intentionally lie and deceive to achieve their political agendas, relying on the stupidity of the American people. Such they have also done with climate change and evolution. Apparently it's working with some.

I can't tell if you are serious or just trolling the other writer on this thread. To suggest that liberals intentionally lie and deceive is a pretty ignorant statement. People may or may not intentionally lie but it has little to do with political stance and much more to do with pathologies. Having said that we do know for a fact that conservatives tend to be less informed on topics and are for the most part low information voters. One could link dozens of sights that discuss why conservatives make uninformed decisions. This is just the first one I came to.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...s-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

 

[AE 87]

Since I am not a scientist but just someone who has always read on a wide variety of topics, tell me which part of of your statement I should understand to be not be true. Random mutation? Natural selection? On a related topic, how do you understand what happens with genetic modification?

Sorry for the short hand. The reigning evolutionary paradigm has three facets. It claims first, common descent, that all biological life arose from the same simple first life. It then claims that the mechanism by which biological diversity arose was the unguided process of natural selection acting on random variations. So, to answer your questions, random mutations (and other genetic variations) do occur. Natural selection occurs. However, it has become increasingly clear over the last 50 years that the combination of these are insufficient to explain the origin of the genetic innovations observed in current biological diversity. In other words, the reigning evolutionary paradigm, or scientific theory has been falsified. What remains is simply the assumption that some natural mechanism will be found, an ideology.

On a side note, do you think that people who want scientific explanations are somehow denying God in some way? I have always found that a curious interpretation.

No. I don't know anyone who believes that. In fact, the expectation that the earth and the cosmos could be rationally explained which led to the advances of modern science in the west was strongly facilitated by the belief in a God who made it. I was just saying that the reason you don't hear the truth about the gaps and problems associated with evolutionary science is that the truth suggests a designer. So, the functional use of the word evolution is no longer an actual scientific theory but rather a place-holder for a not-God ideology.

 

[AE 87]

I can't tell if you are serious or just trolling the other writer on this thread. To suggest that liberals intentionally lie and deceive is a pretty ignorant statement. People may or may not intentionally lie but it has little to do with political stance and much more to do with pathologies. Having said that we do know for a fact that conservatives tend to be less informed on topics and are for the most part low information voters. One could link dozens of sights that discuss why conservatives make uninformed decisions. This is just the first one I came to.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...s-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

No. This is the architect of Obamacare who was paid close to half a million dollars to pretty much write the bill.




Now, do you think the President and the Democrats in congress were among the too stupid or those who agreed to lie to the American people banking on them as being too stupid to understand.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So the health care costs are bending downward for the first time in several decades, tens of millions of people who could not afford health care before now have it and by every indication the economy has actually improved in states that have not blocked Affordable Health Care and you are going to let your pretty little head be confused by something you see on Fox? Up until now I thought I was talking to someone more intelligent than that. I personally know someone involved in crafting the health care act and I can tell you this is a terrific plan for America especially compared to what we had before in health care.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Sorry for the short hand. The reigning evolutionary paradigm has three facets. It claims first, common descent, that all biological life arose from the same simple first life. It then claims that the mechanism by which biological diversity arose was the unguided process of natural selection acting on random variations. So, to answer your questions, random mutations (and other genetic variations) do occur. Natural selection occurs. However, it has become increasingly clear over the last 50 years that the combination of these are insufficient to explain the origin of the genetic innovations observed in current biological diversity. In other words, the reigning evolutionary paradigm, or scientific theory has been falsified. What remains is simply the assumption that some natural mechanism will be found, an ideology.



No. I don't know anyone who believes that. In fact, the expectation that the earth and the cosmos could be rationally explained which led to the advances of modern science in the west was strongly facilitated by the belief in a God who made it. I was just saying that the reason you don't hear the truth about the gaps and problems associated with evolutionary science is that the truth suggests a designer. So, the functional use of the word evolution is no longer an actual scientific theory but rather a place-holder for a not-God ideology.

Yeah, I kind of see that but that seems to me to be a small part of the problem. As for gaps and problems, as I understand it, the theory of relativity has always had a kind of never ending stream of gaps and problems but that is not something the average person on the street would be aware of. That does not mean that the theory is not a good one and it certainly does not mean that people who still adhere to the theory are purposefully hiding the truth. I also don't think there was an orchestrated effort to make Einstein look like more of a genius than he was. I guess I keep sensing that you see something bigger and more sinister going on and that feels a little paranoid to me.

 

[AE 87]

Yeah, I kind of see that but that seems to me to be a small part of the problem. As for gaps and problems, as I understand it, the theory of relativity has always had a kind of never ending stream of gaps and problems but that is not something the average person on the street would be aware of. That does not mean that the theory is not a good one and it certainly does not mean that people who still adhere to the theory are purposefully hiding the truth. I also don't think there was an orchestrated effort to make Einstein look like more of a genius than he was. I guess I keep sensing that you see something bigger and more sinister going on and that feels a little paranoid to me.

LOL. You admit that you don't understand the science. You guess that there's an analogy to something else you clearly don't understand. So based on your ignorance of everything being discussed, you conclude that maybe I'm paranoid. That makes sense. Perhaps Gruber was on to something.

Look, in this thread, I've already posted a link to evolutionary biologists saying there's a need for a new scientific theory because the data does not support the old one. They're not talking about gaps in the theory needing to be filled out. They're not political conservatives or religionists pursuing an ideology. They are committed to a naturalist explanation. They're still saying that the reigning evolution paradigm isn't good science.

Yet you have people like Bill Nye in that debate you watched saying that there's nothing wrong with the Neo-Darwinian synthesis and that it has no problems. There's nothing paranoid about saying that people are lying about there being no problems with the theory, you've seen it. It's also in the National Science Teachers Association position statement. Here's a relevant quote:

Teachers face pressure not only to eliminate or de-emphasize the teaching of evolution, but to introduce scientific misinformation and non-science into science classrooms. This pressure comes from overt advocacy of nonscientific views, such as “creation science,” “intelligent design,” or other forms of creationism, as well as the implicit advancement of those nonscientific views to “teach the controversy” or present “strengths and weaknesses of evolution.” Twisting and abusing core pedagogical principles, such as critical thinking and scientific inquiry is another strategy designed to open science classroom doors to non-science.

By their own words, they reject teaching the actual science regarding weaknesses to the theory as an advancement of non-science. Do you get the irony?

The conversation began with discussion of climate science. Here is some evidence for the lying about climate, though I haven't investigated it further. It coheres with reports of other information which supports that this is the case.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I guess I do not understand where you are coming from. First you quote a passage that speaks of pressure from non-scientific groups like "creation science" like that is supposed to bolster the case against evolution. I honestly do not get the point. It is fairly well documented that there are school boards scattered here and there that have waged war on the teaching of evolution. These groups are the very antithesis of scientific inquiry so I do not understand why you see them as fellow travelers to your cause. Then you put a link from a site that is total junk (Real Science) which I quit reading a long time ago. They have a fanatical commitment to ideology, not science.

 

[AE 87]

I guess I do not understand where you are coming from. First you quote a passage that speaks of pressure from non-scientific groups like "creation science" like that is supposed to bolster the case against evolution. I honestly do not get the point. It is fairly well documented that there are school boards scattered here and there that have waged war on the teaching of evolution. These groups are the very antithesis of scientific inquiry so I do not understand why you see them as fellow travelers to your cause. Then you put a link from a site that is total junk (Real Science) which I quit reading a long time ago. They have a fanatical commitment to ideology, not science.

Actual science says there is a problem with the dominant paradigm, but it's labeled non-science because creationists say the same thing. I thought I was pretty clear.

I also said that I did no further investigation into the real science blog, but I also linked other evidence of intentional fraud on climate science.

A serious response would have challenged and discussed with evidence the facts claimed in the blog. You chose simply to mock it and label it heretical. Again, you disclose that for you this is a faith issue.