[skjaeran]

Al_U_Card, on Sep 29 2007, 09:38 PM, said:

Being a meaningful part of the universal process does not impede the enjoyment of your life and lifestyle, it just allows you to understand it.

What I and mine do with my life is what give meaning and 'purpose'. I've never understood the need for any bigger meaning or purpose.

[mr1303]

Over in the UK, we have a stand-up comedian who goes by the name of David Gorman. He has a tendency to do stupid things such as having a bet with his flatmate (Danny Wallace) that he could meet 54 David Gorman's (one for every card in the pack, including the jokers).

The reason I mention him, is that during his last stupid thing (Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure, where he had to meet 10 googlewhacks in a row, if each one only found him 2 more - read the book) he met a chap called Duane T Gish - Dripstone Ingles, who happened to be a leading creationist (despite having a PhD). Dr Gish's argument mentioned the fact that evolution was a breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (In a closed system, all things tend towards entropy), since the concept of more complicated organisms must be a breach of this law. The idea appears to be that creatures should become more simple as time goes on, as opposed to the other way around, as evolution theorises.

Dave Gorman disagrees with this statement, since Dr Gish's argument makes the assumption that the Earth is a closed system, which of course it isn't, due to outside influences such as the sun.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 03:46 PM, said:

Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

I'm going out and getting laid tonight...

[Fluffy]

skaeran, on Sep 29 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

Purpose?
Life doesn't need any purpose for me to live a good and happy life.

I'd love to see it this way, but if happiness was just a chemical reaction and we were just a group of atoms/molecules life actually would had no meaning to me.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Sep 29 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 03:46 PM, said:

Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

I'm going out and getting laid tonight...

I apologize for everything bad I have ever said to you, my new favorite poster.

[mr1303]

hrothgar, on Sep 29 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2007, 03:46 PM, said:

Those who believe in evolution, I wonder what is the purpose of life for you.

I'm going out and getting laid tonight...

I wish I could make predictions like that (and have them come true)

[mikeh]

I have another idea for a poll related to this one.

What percentage of those opposed to evolution have ever read any of the many well-written popularizations of the theory (leaving aside technical books or the original works by Darwin himself)?

I get the distinct impression that those who refuse to accept evolution misunderstand the concept and the evidence.

So my guess is that 95% of the 'I don't believe in evolution' would turn out not to have read anything by a proponent of the theory, while I suspect that the percentage of those who accept the theory and have read, say, the Bible or the Koran would be higher.

Fluffy, for example, claims that it is an unproven theory. Any reasonably intelligent layperson would know that this is incorrect if he or she chose to actually study the issue to any degree. Fluffy presents as a 'reasonably intelligent layperson', so I suspect he hasn't done any such reading.

Richard's example of the evolution of superbugs is probably the most evident today. I read an article in Scientific American a year or so ago about what has happened in these bacteria that has left some of them resistant to anti-biotics.

Leaving aside the science as to the bilogical mechanims at play, the story is that bacteria live on an extremely short life-cycle, by human terms. There are a LOT of them present in any infection process. And their reproduction is such that there are going to be small changes, as a result of random reproduction errors or the exchange of biological matter between species or from viruses etc.

So at any given time, there will sometimes be anti-biotic resistant bugs, but they will be (before we caused them to become dominant) a tiny fraction of the bug population in our body. And those bacteria with those characteristics may be actually handicapped in the ordinary contest for reproductive success: the very mechanisms that render them resistant to anti-biotics may impose a cost on the organism in an anti-biotic-free zone. In addition, regression to the mean may result in these variants being swamped in the reproductive chaos that is the norm.

Then we come along and introduce anti-biotics. Instead of unmediated natural events winnowing out organisms that lag in the race for reproductive success, we kill off 99.9% of the organisms... all those without resistant mechanisms. The tiny surviving fraction then forms the basis of the new growth: virtually all of the new 'parent' generations is resistant, so their progeny (I know, not a good term when discussing asexual reproduction of bacteria) will inherit that characteristic.

And every course of anti-biotic treatment of an infected person (or cow, sheep, chicken etc) will repeat this refining process. It happens quickly, from our perspective, because there are a huge number of 'generations' due to the speed of the reproductive cycles of bacteria compared to humans.

BTW, one compelling reason for always finishing a course of presribed antibiotics even after the symptoms disappear is that the drug-resistant mechanisms of our particular population of bugs may not be doing anything more than buying the bugs some time. The mechanisms may not be conferring immunity, merely a competitive advantage. But by stopping the treatment before these somewhat resistant bugs are killed, we destroy the easily killed, and leave behind a population where the subsequent mutations will be centred around a somewhat drug-resistant form.. and each subsequent course of anti-biotics will 'drive' the population further and further towards robust resistance.

So we have an actual proven example of darwinian evolution within our own bodies (and hospitals etc). Random events give rise to a range of bacteria, some small number possessing drug resistant mechanisms. The intervention of anti-biotics serves as an analog to natural selection, on a speeded-up scale, and winnows out those bacteria not fit for the altered environment, leaving those best fitted for survival in that environment able to reproduce free of competition, and thus their descendants inherit the drug resistance.

All of this (and countless other processes) can be and have been measured on the cellular level.

And molecular genetics has also greatly expanded the ability of researchers to trace and quantify relationships, ancestries, and timelines in evolution.

To state the evolution is only a theory, as if to say that it is 'unproven', is a statement of ignorance, not argument. Evolution is as well proven a theory as there is these days. Evolutionists continue to argue about detail, but nobody outside of the lunatic fringe or the ignorant disputes that Evolutionary theory reflects the real world.

[Winstonm]

For the 2 who voted that the U.S. already believes in evolution:

Quote

One such question was included in a May Gallup Panel survey:

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

2007 May 21-24
Yes, believe in evolution  49
No, do not 48
No opinion  2

There is also this shocking result

Quote

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution.

Like we've always said, god is a republican.

[Winstonm]

A little more from Gallup:

Quote

Also, some people regard evolution as covering only the development of life forms from the first one-celled animal to the present diversity of plants and animals. Others include the origins of the universe, the development of galaxies, stars, planetary systems, development of mountain ranges, continental drift, etc.

The results, for what they are worth are a statistical draw:

49% believe in "Evolution;"
48% do not;
2% have no opinion.

As expected, more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:"

74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do:
48% of college graduates
50% of adults with some college
41% of adults with high school or less.

More frequent attendance at religious services correlated with a lack of belief in "evolution:"

24% of those who attend weekly believe in evolution, as do:
52% of those who attend nearly weekly or monthly, and
71% of those who attend seldom or never.

As expected, political affiliation reflects a difference of opinion on origins:

Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" 68% do not.
61% of independents believe in "evolution;" 37% do not.
57% of Democrats believe in "evolution;" 40% do not.

The five main reasons why people say they do not believe in "evolution" are belief Jesus Christ, belief in God, due to my religion or faith, not enough evidence, and belief in the Bible

Religion to the 5th power?

[Fluffy]

It depends Mike, I have studied evolution, Mendel and stuff at high school, and I probably got some extra knowledge from documentaries wich I love. But I didn't read any book of those who you (or others) adressed me for a deep research.

Now I feel almost forced to tell you about the bible, wich I didn't read, nor probably you, but both of us have a fair idea of what it says. And a very different thing is what others want to tell us it is saying BTW.

I think I have a good idea of how evolution works, and I would never reject it since I can hardly get any proof that its wrong, I only reject it as the only possible answer. And I really hope its not the good one.

Actually not the only one, evolution is not contradictory with religion, god or anything.

I don't care if politicians are scared of the church losing power and want an open 'sacred' war between evolution and religion, they won't fool me with that nonsense.

[Fluffy]

BTW, do you really care what americans believe Han?, At least half of them think Bush is a good presindent , and I keep getting mails that say 36.254% of them believe Korea is in africa, and 17.532% believe japan is land connected with Texas, and many other rubish.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

It depends Mike, I have studied evolution, Mendel and stuff at high school, and I probably got some extra knowledge from documentaries wich I love. But I didn't read any book of those who you (or others) adressed me for a deep research.

Now I feel almost forced to tell you about the bible, wich I didn't read, nor probably you, but both of us have a fair idea of what it says. And a very different thing is what others want to tell us it is saying BTW.

I think I have a good idea of how evolution works, and I would never reject it since I can hardly get any proof that its wrong, I only reject it as the only possible answer. And I really hope its not the good one.

Actually not the only one, evolution is not contradictory with religion, god or anything.

I don't care if politicians are scared of the church losing power and want an open 'sacred' war between evolution and religion, they won't fool me with that nonsense.

Mendel didn't actually deal with evolution as such (based on dim and distant memory) but he did pioneering work on what is now known as genetics: however, I don't know that he did any work on what really drives evolution: the innate variability of genetic inheritance, including copying errors and the impact of genetic material from other sources such as viruses, and the bombardment of our bodies by various forms of radiation and environmental contamination. That variation is half of evolution; ensuring that each generation of a DNA-based life-form will contain some variation. Then natural selection takes care of removing most of the variants from the gene pool, because most random changes result in progeny less well-suited for reproductive success than the prevailing 'norm'. Occasionally, and sometimes due to environmental change, a particular new variation will both breed true and afford a reproductive advantage. Even then, if the mutation is uncommon and the population is large, the variant may not gain sufficient reproductive success so as to lead to a species-wide change or the evolution of a new, distinct species. However, when the population in which this 'improved' (as in 'more fit', not as in 'intentionally made better') variant surfaces has become isolated or reduced in numbers, the advantaged variant will perhaps out-compete the previous norm and thus, slowly, there will be a new species.

While we wonder at the huge variety of life and the apparent unlikelihood that, for example, a wing could evolve, or an eye.. the fact appears to be that we are incapable of intuitively understanding just how long a period of time evolution has been at play. We can say that unicellular life appears to have evolved 3.5 billion years ago (and may have died out), or that the Cambrian explosion occurred 525 million years ago, but these numbers are largely meaningless to our intuition. And the problem is compounded when we realize that our reproductive cycle is almost glacially slow compared to the vast bulk of present and former life. So while we may see 200 million years as, say, only 10 million generations, to a fruit fly or even a shrew, there have been many more iterations, each with its crop of variants upon which natural selection has a chance to operate.

And BTW, I was raised a Catholic, with Sunday school and even 'divinity studies' for a number of years of my English public school education

[Winstonm]

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

BTW, do you really care what americans believe Han?, At least half of them think Bush is a good presindent , and I keep getting mails that say 36.254% of them believe Korea is in africa, and 17.532% believe japan is land connected with Texas, and many other rubish.

Well, obviously that is nonsense as everyone knows that it is Iraq that is connected to Texas.

[Mbodell]

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

BTW, do you really care what americans believe Han?, At least half of them think Bush is a good presindent ,

Actually it is only about 1/3 Americans who think Bush is a good president. And only 14% think history will judge Bush as an above average president.

[han]

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

BTW, do you really care what americans believe Han?

Yeah I do.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Sep 30 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

BTW, do you really care what americans believe Han?, At least half of them think Bush is a good presindent , and I keep getting mails that say 36.254% of them believe Korea is in africa, and 17.532%  believe japan is land connected with Texas, and many other rubish.

Well, obviously that is nonsense as everyone knows that it is Iraq that is connected to Texas.

yes! otherwise how would they both have oil?!?!?!?!?

[matmat]

Mbodell, on Sep 30 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

BTW, do you really care what americans believe Han?, At least half of them think Bush is a good presindent ,

Actually it is only about 1/3 Americans who think Bush is a good president. And only 14% think history will judge Bush as an above average president.

I don't believe in the theory of history! it is wrong!

[matmat]

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

It depends Mike, I have studied evolution, Mendel and stuff at high school, and I probably got some extra knowledge from documentaries wich I love. But I didn't read any book of those who you (or others) adressed me for a deep research.

Now I feel almost forced to tell you about the bible, wich I didn't read, nor probably you, but both of us have a fair idea of what it says. And a very different thing is what others want to tell us it is saying BTW.

I think I have a good idea of how evolution works, and I would never reject it since I can hardly get any proof that its wrong, I only reject it as the only possible answer. And I really hope its not the good one.

Actually not the only one, evolution is not contradictory with religion, god or anything.

I don't care if politicians are scared of the church losing power and want an open 'sacred' war between evolution and religion, they won't fool me with that nonsense.

a few points --

an intro college level bio text would do -- no need for in-depth research.

if you didn't read the Bible, how can you have an idea of what it says? That is actually a poll i would like to see, but doubt it exists -- what %age of the church going population has actually read the Bible.. I understand that you can have an idea of what someone else thinks that book says, but how, having not read it, can you say that you have an idea of what it actually says?

in math and science, lack of proof that something is wrong doesn't make it right. the whole point of evolution and other theories, is that there is a whole lot of proof that it, most likely, to a high degree of certainty, with large probability is correct.

let me preface that I am not in the least bit religious, but as far as i understand it, western religion has the flexibility built into it to adjust to the scientific circumstance. (granted it takes a few hundred years for that to happen sometimes, but it generally accepts modern scientific theories and achievement). what does worry me is how unwilling certain religious factions/entities are to modify their thinking.

somewhat related anectdote: i once saw a paper on the astronomy preprint server trying to reconcile the days listed in the Bible with the seemingly short 24 hour day we have now. According to the author the length of the day was inversely proportional to the consecutive day number, starting with 1 for the day of the big bang. the current day # is of course very large, so there is very little difference in length between consecutive days, but the first few days were incredibly long, allowing the deity to create lots of things during the first six days

[Elianna]

Fluffy, on Sep 30 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

Now I feel almost forced to tell you about the bible, wich I didn't read, nor probably you, but both of us have a fair idea of what it says. And a very different thing is what others want to tell us it is saying BTW.

You may still be addressing this to Mike, I'm not sure, but I've read the Bible (though we may be talking about different ones).

I don't recall it having a lot of proof of creationism.

I too would be curious to see a poll of what percentage of different groups have read The Bible (and which version). Like those who attend worship vs. those who don't. Etc.

[Gerben42]

Quote

if you didn't read the Bible, how can you have an idea of what it says? That is actually a poll i would like to see, but doubt it exists -- what %age of the church going population has actually read the Bible.. I understand that you can have an idea of what someone else thinks that book says, but how, having not read it, can you say that you have an idea of what it actually says?

What does it mean to have read the Bible. Is it bad when I skipped over the endless "and X is the son of Y" list in Genesis?

Quote

I don't recall it having a lot of proof of creationism.

It's something you cannot prove or disprove. As I said before, I cannot disprove that the Earth, BBO and this forum have all been magically created N minutes ago. I can use Occam's razor and dismiss this hypothesis for any value of N, though.

For almost all times by common sense, for the very early times in the universe for which we have no physics because I have insufficient information as does anyone else, and the likelyhood of a story in some old dusty book to have anything to do with whatever happened is mind-boggling to me.