silkworm

So you're all saying that we will evolve if our environment changes...a very big change at that. But how do we evolve? Will we grow fur if our environment suddenly becomes colder (IceAge)? Grow fur, grow gills...something like that...mutate?

No, we're saying that there is too much gene flow among the entirety of the human species for one to branch off and be different than other groups of the human species where we'd have 2 seperate human species at the same time.

And no. Say you have someone from the south pacific who moves up north, he will not grow fur. If he's dressed the same in the south pacific as he will up north he likely will freeze to death, but us human have invented coats and houses so such a thing isn't a problem. However, back in the days before coats and houses the most successful in northern tribes were the hairy (and white due to vitamin D) , so Northerners are relatively more hairy and white compared to those in warmer climates.

Well, the hobbit people are hominid and recent. Outside of us and other primates are squids and dolphins (that I'm aware of). Nothing compared to us though.

Well, thanks for the help everyone except this meeting was pretty uneventful. There weren't many people and Dr. Lucas did not join the meeting due to technical limitations, which are being worked out and he most likely will join us in two weeks.

I recapped the meeting here:http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/06/02/recap-of-june-1st-corr-meeting/

In chemistry, as far as I know in electroplating, the cathode is where the electrons enter the water bath and so cations are attracted to it, and the anode attracts negative charges.

A cation is actually the name given for a positively charged atomic species and an anion is a negatively charged atomic species.

Thanks for all the replies! When do you think that will happen-the next stage?

Absolutely not in our lifetime, but definitely at some point in the future barring any unforeseen massively devastating events that would effect our technology and strength as a species and if we can manage not to kill ourselves either purposely or accidentally.

He's probably talking about genetic populations.

 

When a population of people are distant from other populations' date=' then both populations can't spread their genetic code around with each other.

 

With a population isolated in space, the alleles (genetic code/genes) in the population could change, mutate, or etc. over a period of time.

 

This would lead to an eventual change in the human genome and perhaps create a different species.

 

From what I'm reading on the board, however, it looks like people say gamma rays or some other space radiation can change the genome to create a new species within a population.[/quote']

 

 

That's precisely what I'm saying. While we are humans are still evolving (different traits becoming more widespread) I think that Alice's question was more interested in speciation. Because the world is so small to us now and all human populations travel and interbread so readily the gene flow would make the speciation of any human group from the rest very very unlikely. I meant that when we reach a time of space travel populations will be isolated from each other and speciation may occur after a long time, time feasable in that case.

There is a big difference between selling drugs or guns or whatever and raping children. We must protect those who are innocent in our society with much more vigor and ferocity than in any other case in my opinion. I would even go to say pedophilia is as vicious a crime as murder.

Peon, I agree about the seriousness of child rape, but no matter what the crime is you have to make sure it was going to happen before arresting the peddler. Otherwise, I could get you arrested you right now for being a peddler, or I could get you arrested because I think you're having a peddler thought. I'm sure that the authorities make their best effort not to entrap, and I don't disagree with the practice, but I'd like to know that it's certain that the peddler was a peddler before we send him to get his ass punished for years in prison for being one.

Most of it comes from human self-importance. The supporters don't realize how unimportant their opinion is to hard reality, and the preconceptions tend to be based on emotional responses based on how something sounds, and not what it means. Simply, they've never had to figure anything out, so they don't know how to, and generally don't have the reference or foresight to be able to criticize the information they're given. The botched boob jobs who claim to know the truth are just leaches who take advantage of these otherwise well meaning but disarmed people.

these creationist people waste their resources in stuff full of nonsense and shit

And they show huge amounts of disrepect to the followers of the religion they share by doing so.

These stings always set the guy up to solicit sex in the girl's home when her parents are supposedly away. They do NOT have to cross state lines (this isn't about kidnapping). Just chatting is not the crime' date=' it's when the guy invites himself over to what he believes is a willing, but underage, girl's house to break the law with her.

 

There are usually other guidelines, things the police have to get the predator to say, like he has to tell her very specific things he's going to do to her, bring certain things with him so they know it's him, etc. Believe me, by the time the guy shows up at the "house", they know exactly what his intent is.

 

This may seem like entrapment but these guys are never first-timers. They've done this for real before and they'll do it over and over again if they aren't stopped.[/quote']

 

Something must of changed, I'm almost certain at one point the peddler had to cross state lines. (Of course I use the term peddler because we all know there are women pedofiles as well). And I don't think this type of sting is automatically entrapment. That would be receiving a PM or seeing in the chat window "Hey, I'm a 10 year old, I'll give you my address and you come over and have sex with me." I'm sure the peddler (my sister's sex-neutral term for pedofile) has to initiate. I wonder how blow by blow things have to get in the trial.

Pffff. That's not cool Snail. Don't leave me alone with them.

We're evolving right now, always. It never ends. But you probably mean speciation, and I personally don't think we'll speciate until populations of us are isolated during interstellar space travel.

Yep, won't be long before it's that way here. On both the religion and the freedom of the press, because nothing does censorship and oppression like a theocracy. What's up with religion being allergic to truth anyway?

At least they'll come out of this alive, well for now anyway.

Good luck journalists.

Wait, don't they have to set up a meeting and the guy has to show? I think that has to happen and it has to be over statelines. I don't think they can bust into your house for chatting on the internet with a minor. That would be impossible to prosecute to conviction because you wouldn't even be sure it's him, and I'm sure chatting with a minor on the internet is not illegal. Attempted kidnapping is however, etc. If he crosses a stateline to meet an underage kid for what I'm sure the police establish in the chat the guy has a lot of stuff coming at him, interstate commerce, etc. etc. etc. etc. In fact I'm pretty sure it has to cross state lines to work because I'm not sure how you could legally get away setting these traps otherwise (because doing so helps a lot in showing criminal intent as well)- unless there are states that have special laws for this.

So it's not just talking, dude has to show or legally they don't even know who it is and they have nothing at all.

This also raises ethical issues since to test genetic modification, we'll have to use human subjects, or species with as near characteristics as possible.

That's what the death penalty is for. We have to stop this whining about ethics and try everything. If we stop doing things because we go mental we'll only stifle our own progress.

Is ADD an actual disorder or is it just one because society says it is? I mean, is the kid's life ruined because of ADD or is it better, and do we label it and treat it simply because of how society is set up or because it actually causes harm to him as a human organism?

@ ecoli - I don't know, and I don't think we should cross that road until we get there.

I definitely see problems with using genetic modification to intentionally steer behavior, but to cure genetic illness I'm all for.

Either way (if not in common practice), I definitely see the benefit we would get by exploring it scientifically.

lucaspa, thanks again for those files. It was interesting to see "Mein Kampf" referenced in that area. I really have to struggle to keep a nerve from getting touched when I have to explain that I do not endorse Hitler. I generally use a different approach where we both agree that Hitler was an a-hole, neither one of us like him, and he's not a scientist.

I'd also like to put this Gobineau into better perspective. Was he influencal? Do you have anything in his own words about "Darwinism"?

Originally Posted by silkworm

They are there for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith' date=' as a student of science I am naturally interested in the argument if one is presented, but when it's not I let them know. I don't go to these functions at church services, this is a public university. I do put my beliefs (or lack thereof) aside,

 

I am beginning to doubt that. Because you won't reassure the audience that science doesn't attack their faith. Let's face it, you have beliefs. You believe God does not exist. You believe all the physical processes discovered by science work on their own. That they don't need a supernatural component.

 

What you are doing is good, but it is not sufficient. As you noted, for the audience the issue is only secondary that Lucas' particular scientific theories are wrong. The real important thing is that Lucas is telling them that the currently valid scientific theories attack their faith. You aren't telling them differently.[/quote']

 

By telling the audience that science does not comment on the existence of God, telling them I'm a student of science, and doing my best to say that the science presented is misrepresented generally does the trick. When I make the speaker lose his credibility, he loses his credibility. When I gain my credibility, I gain my credibility. Sometimes I offer that if anyone tried to take their religion away from them I'd fight for their right to their religion because I don't believe in imposing on anyone's freedom. That's as far as I go, and I think it works.

 

Quote:

I attend simply as a student of science. I refuse to lie to my own people' date=' and if my atheism is exposed and becomes an issue I will simply say, "I was raised christian, I am a midwesterner, I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you. I'm here as a student of science Everything I say about textbook science can be verified by science textbooks."

 

Let me make a suggestion. Say "Yes, my personal belief is atheism. However, that belief is not part of science. Science is neutral about belief in God. Many, many scientists are theists. They view science as telling them how God works. I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you, and I had to speak because these people are lying to you. They are lying about specific theories in science. The theories are not what they say they are. You can look for yourself by reading science textbooks."

 

Now, is there any dishonesty in that?[/quote']

 

Neutral is a fantastic word.

 

Quote:

I think that says what I meant' date=' but just in case I'll put it another way. He goes up there and says something silly, I'm not going to go up there and say something silly back, I'm going to simply say, that's silly.

 

That's more understandable, but can you give me a concrete example of what you consider "something silly"?[/quote']

 

My favorite example comes from a creationist video, A Question of Origins. It says, "If birds came from reptiles, as evolutionists claim, who did the first bird mate with?" The way to give them a podium is to say we have fossils, or to talk about morphology, anything except what I did. I simply said (and I had to repeat myself 3 times before I got some concessions) is say, "That's a misrepresenation of the theory of evolution. That statement implies that a reptile suddenly gave birth to a bird, fully formed as a bird who had to wait for a mate. That's nonsense and no one who understands evolution would ever endorse that. (Then I go on to explain who traits spread through a population and gradually a population of the reptiles gradually become a population of birds and mate with each other along the way (sorry I had did a "long story short here")." I put it all in practical terms and I know it introduced a few people to a valid explaination of how evolution works for the first time. I didn't debate. I don't debate. I just do that.

 

And this appears to do it. People are generally pissed when they're lied to about something, and these creationists doing it are attacking people's faith, not me. This one girl that approached me after the meeting was so angry she was shaking and mumbling and had tears in her eyes with clenched fists. She wasn't pissed at me though. I just sat down with her and talked with her a little bit and in that conversation I'm sure I did say something about science having nothing to do with her faith, that the botched presentation or what I said should not affect it. I don't know how much it helped her because she was apparently deeply bothered. Having this information misrepresented to them genuinely bothers them, this has been my experience.

 

But Dawkins and Gould have a good point: debates don't decide truth and the creationists can "win" a debate by being better debators, thus giving credibility to creationism. It's a risk.

 

I agree if that were the case, but I also don't see a debate as possible until the two sides meet. In order to have a scientific argument, which I will gladly participate in, the other side has to bring a valid one and present a valid scientific argument. Scientific terms must be used and used correctly. If they want to make it theological, I can't participate because that is not my area. I don't drink the tea, I just say there isn't any.

 

You keep highlighting how important religion is to this crowd. But then say you are going to avoid the religious implications! Unless you meet the religious concerns head-on and defuse them' date=' I submit your scientific arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. As long as they view science as atheism, you've "lost". You are going to have to insist that science is neutral toward religion. It doesn't back theism (particularly their version of it) but it doesn't back atheism, either.

 

If you are going to educate them on correct versions of specific theories, you might as well educate them on correct philosophical terms.

 

Unless, of course, you really believe science falsifies religion and mandates atheism?[/quote']

 

I believe that science will only do so only if the believer uses science to do so on his or her own, it's not science's place. It's like using a butterknife for a screwdriver, it works only if you want it to, but it really is just meant in uses for the kitchen.

 

And I'm not going to refer to science as a person because it is not. Of course it doesn't have a religion, it also doesn't have a favorite baseball team or style of music. I also make sure to point that out, but I also don't participate in theological discussions.

 

On top of me not having the authority to speak on religion because I don't have one is the fact that if I do, that's what the argument becomes, an interpretation of science based on a theological debate, instead of a scientific argument deciding scientific interpretations.

However, thru most of the history of science, science has been viewed as figuring out how God works/created. Thus, science is not an enemy of, nor completely separate from, religion.

(I never said that you said science has to consult a religious text either, I was just trying to illustrate my point)

I very much see your point here, but don't you agree that religion is not required here, it simply predates the scientific method, thus leads to its insertion? And the way God works is the subsitute for the way nature operates at the time? The God part is unneccessary.

Even today, Dawkins use of science to bolster atheism and bash theism is having science be a bedfellow of religion -- but in this case the religion is atheism.

I agree, and I wish he wouldn't. He needs to divorce them as well, but he has a chip on his shoulder. Ironically, he's giving religion a podium in science by doing so.

But that scientists can have such diverse personal beliefs means that science is compatible with those beliefs. So, even tho you are an atheist, you can honestly present science as being compatible with theism. No lie there, is there?

No, no lie there, however, and you pointed this out earlier (and it is true) that my atheism has nothing to do with science. Whether or not science is compatible with my personal beliefs (or lack thereof) is moot to me because I divorce the too. When I view a scientific argument I see if it's scientifically valid before I try to put it into perspective in my personal life.

We as scientists can't know all about the universe unless and until science can decide whether or not the supernatural exists and whether or not is necessary for the material methods we find in science to work.

Science used to be defined here as the use of natural explainations for phenoma. I take that to mean that science is limited by the bounds of nature. If there is a supernatural force it is outside the realm of science, because as you said, it can not be tested.

In the meantime, in order to defend science effectively against attack by a particular religion -- Fundamentalism -- we have to be able to show that science does not threaten God. Otherwise, if we don't comment the Fundies are going to use politics to define science the way they want so that God is not threatened.

I agree, but I leave religion out of it. I just say what science is and what it says and let them come to their own conclusions. Besides, it's harder to shake that way.

Quote:

I go to these meetings as a student of science looking for a valid scientific argument' date=' not as a religious person.

 

I understand that's why you go, but what about the audience? They are there to hear "Christianity" and God defended against what they perceive as science that is inherently atheistic.[/quote']

 

They are there for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith, as a student of science I am naturally interested in the argument if one is presented, but when it's not I let them know. I don't go to these functions at church services, this is a public university.

 

Quote:

That's how I approach it' date=' and that's the only way I can do it honestly.

 

Sigh. I understand. Yes, you are doing your best, but you are handicapped by your beliefs. I'm asking you to set aside your personal beliefs and present evolution as it can honestly be presented: as the way God created. Yes, those are not your beliefs, but you do recognize that your beliefs are beliefs and could be wrong, right? There's nothing against science with evolution being presented, for theists, as how God created. Afer all, many evolutionists are theistic evolutionists. Atheists, of course, believe evolution works on its own because they believe there is no God. [/quote']

 

I do put my beliefs (or lack thereof) aside, I attend simply as a student of science. I refuse to lie to my own people, and if my atheism is exposed and becomes an issue I will simply say, "I was raised christian, I am a midwesterner, I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you. I'm here as a student of science, and I had to speak because these people are lying to you. Everything I say about textbook science can be verified by science textbooks."

 

Quote:

I'm not going to argue in scientific invalidity' date=' I just point out that he's misrepresenting science and that his arguments are invalid scientifically.

 

??? Please read what you wrote again. you say you won't argue in scientific invalidity, but then say his arguments are scientifically invalid. I think you meant to say something else, because this contradicts.[/quote']

 

I think that says what I meant, but just in case I'll put it another way. He goes up there and says something silly, I'm not going to go up there and say something silly back, I'm going to simply say, that's silly.

 

Quote:

The Dawkins Method is correct in sentiment in this regard. If I attend and join his imaginary tea party I'm giving him validity' date='

 

What "imaginary tea party"? What's the "Dawkins Method"?

[/quote']

 

Richard Dawkins and Jay Gould said that taking part in these "debates" gives the creationist side validity, a podium, that they wouldn't have otherwise. Sounds logical, so scientists generally avoid functions like these to avoid giving this ridiculousness merit. That's what we did here as science and education were under attack, which is just not show up and read the papers. However, ignoring this problem only makes it worse, by the tea party reference I believe that the Dawkins Method is correct if you say, "This isn't good tea, the tea is too sweet," instead of saying, "There is no tea here."

 

I know that's a bit abstract and I may not be expressing it well here, does it make sense?

 

Quote:

Also' date=' agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, and I do not have the authority to redefine it for them.

 

Sure you do. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" specifically not to be confused with atheism. The terms are out there in the public domain. You are part of the public. You have the authority to give the correct definitions.[/quote']

 

I know but agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, as are Judaism, Islam, and any other nonchristian belief (even to a small extent catholicism). This is generally an evangelical crowd. Whether or not the audience knows the difference in definitions is moot, any nonprotestant belief is seen as atheism here, as is pointed out by many specific examples both at these meetings and many church services/conversations with evangelicals I have attended in the past. It's also outside of the realm of my authority and nonreligious interests.

Science and religion are bedfellows. Have been perceived that way for centuries. Even today scientists who are theists view science as figuring out how God works.

However, scientists come from different backgrounds. Different religions or no religion at all. And who a scientist is at home and where science exists are 2 entirely different places. Just like science is generally done a great disservice by being expressed in dramatic terms via the media (examples: "survival of the fittest," "disorder"), science does not have consult any religion or religious text in order to be good science. It simply must work. The marriage of science and religion is not done by science, though it is done by scientists at home and, unfortunately, by outsiders who take it out of context. This marriage is a cultural one and not a methodological one, as it is common for anyone to measure new ideas against what they already know, primarly given to them by their culture - which of course includes religion. It's simply done by unneccessary and unhappy accident, and it would be the best for both to be permanantly seperated and have no affect on the statements of the other.

Quote:

I see little point in beating Lucas in an invalid argument

 

What do you mean by that?

Well' date=' these meetings are billed as scientific arguments, however I have yet to see a valid scientific argument presented, as well as support for the invalid argument is supported by misrepresented textbook science. I'm not going to argue in scientific invalidity, I just point out that he's misrepresenting science and that his arguments are invalid scientifically. The Dawkins Method is correct in sentiment in this regard. If I attend and join his imaginary tea party I'm giving him validity, however if I go and say, there's no simply no tea here, that's a different thing entirely.

Quote:

I have been met with success in past meetings, however Lucas' first meeting I had the least (although there were the most people there) because of the odd format, and this format is even more odd with the CCTV.

 

Because you don't get to respond directly to Lucas. Which is why you have to be proactive and defuse Lucas' equation of science to atheism and CCS to theism. You can't wait to just respond, but must educate people about science -- both the real theories, really how science is done, and how science really relates to religion. Science is agnostic, not atheistic. My experience is that, as long as the audience hears that a theory is "against God", it does no good to be technically correct about the theory. They have already tuned you out.

 

OK, this time the file attachments worked. I had to put them in PDF format.

Waiting was my mistake in the last meeting, but the CCTV is supposed to be 2-way and I was told I will be given an opportunity to address Lucas in front of the audience. I don't attack him on the atheism-theism but I do attack him on the paranoia and the bad science.

If I'm told not to speak until he's finished presenting, I won't listen because I can't let him lie to the audience, who are probably being given their frame of reference with the lie, and tare what he said appart afterwards.

Also, agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, and I do not have the authority to redefine it for them.

Thank you for the files.

I like Lucaspa. I remember him. He introduced me to an honest-Christian website maintained by a I think an Episcopalian guy who keeps his God and comes to honorable terms with science. Cool guy. Hello Lucaspa' date=' if memory serves we have met before maybe a year ago. Glad to see you, if that's you.

I'm out of here. Just dropped in for a moment. I'm reading a great new quantum gravity paper, and nothing will make me stop doing that today.[/quote']

 

Pfff. Quantum gravity. Sounds rational. The big day is tomorrow, thanks for all the help Martin.