lucaspa

I don't think Coyne ever premised this in this particular article. I'm not familiar with his other works, but it's certainly not the case that he never challenged it here. See:

I stand corrected.

It's such a minor challenge. I had to read the article 3 times (twice deliberately looking for it) before I found it. Coyne should have made it his central thesis. It's so easy to overlook after the much lengthier paragraph before it:

"What's annoying about Coulter (note: there's more than one thing!)

is that she insistently demands evidence for evolution (none of

which she'll ever accept), but requires not a shred of evidence

for her "alternative hypothesis." She repeatedly assures us that

God exists (not just any God -- the Christian God), that there

is only one God (she's no Hindu, folks), that we are made in the

image of said God, that the Christian Bible, like Antonin Scalia's

Constitution, "is not a 'living' document" (that is, not susceptible

to changing interpretation; so does she think that Genesis is

literally true?), and that God just might have used evolution

as part of His plan. What makes her so sure about all this? And

how does she know that the Supreme Being, even if It exists, goes

by the name of Yahweh, rather than Allah, Wotan, Zeus, or Mabel?

If Coulter just knows these things by faith alone, she should

say so, and then tell us why she's so sure that what Parsees or

Zunis just know is wrong. I, for one, am not prepared to believe

that Ann Coulter is made in God's image without seeing some proof."

Now, you can look on this as Coulter's inconsistency. However, any theist is going to look on this as the standard atheist attack against theism. Right here Coyne turns this into an atheism vs theism fight: theism has no evidence and is therefore not valid.

So, after delivering such a viscious attack against theism (and particularly Christianity), are we really supposed to take Coyne's weak paragraph of 1/3 of scientists being theists seriously?

I agree with you completely, except the part above: creationism isn't a scientific theory.

Of course it is: a refuted (or falsified) theory. Being falsified doesn't remove a theory from science. It just moves it from the short column of currently valid theories to the very long column of falsified theories. However, from 1700 to 1830 creationism was the accepted scientific theory.

The reason we have this confusion that creationism is not science is because of lawyers. When creationists wanted YEC taught in public school science classes, the ACLU lawyers decided that their argument would be that creationism is not science. They then got Michael Ruse to mistakenly define science such that creationism would be excluded. So, instead of a definition of science and scientific theories done by scientists or philosophers of science, we got one made up by lawyers.

In the process, we lost the most potent argument against creationism. Saying "creationism is not a scientific theory" says nothing about its truth value. There are lots of statements/ideas that are not scientific theories but which we accept/know are true. By putting creationism outside science, we were unable to pronounce on whether it is true. However, if we evaluate creationism like we do any other scientific theory, then we can pronounce will absolute confidence that it is wrong. (And still keep it out of science class becaus the proponents don't want it taught as wrong, but as valid.)

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years, rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Burnet, William Whiston, and others). Moerover, *variants* of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteetn-century scientists -- William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. HOWEVER, THAT FACT DOES NOT AFFECT THE SCIENTIFC STATUS OF THOSE THEORIES. EVEN POSTULATING AN UNOBSERVED CREATOR NEED BE NO MORE UNSCIENTIFIC THAN POSTULATING UNOBSERVABLE PARTICLES. [emphasis mine] What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation." Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science, the Case against Creationism, 1982, page 125.

Well, it can contribute or even drive speciation, fixing different genes in different populations so that, say, pattern changes enough that they no longer recognize each other as viable mates, or changing various genes that result in hybrid embryos being inviable.

I've seen several papers that refute the idea of neutral speciation. Instead, reproductive isolation is the result of natural selection for reproductive isolation, not chance.

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950.

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996

Well, that depends. I'd argue that some traits *can* be defined, a priori, as advantageous. A good example would be more potent venom for a snake; it kills the prey faster, thereby reducing the risk of injury to the snake or the risk of loss of prey, but doesn't actually cost any more to make, as it's just a differently-shaped protien (same amino-acid number would mean same metabolic cost to manufacture a given quantity).

However, the argument is first based on the hypothesis that venom itself is advantageous. And this, in turn, is a posteriori. It's established empirically that the cost of producing venom is offset by the benefits of venom killing the prey. Once you have venom as advantageous by post hoc analysis, then you can make the a priori argument about more potent venom.

Also, there can be a cost in manufacturing or obtaining the amino acids. Thus, changing one amino acid for another is not necessarily neutral.

Eventually, there is not going to be any selection pressure for more potent venom. After the venom reaches a point where it kills the prey reliably quickly enough that the prey doesn't get away, then any increases on this would not be selective (in and of itself). This more potent venom would be selectively neutral.

However, note that if more potent venom is linked to an increase in the size of the snake, then the more potent venom kills larger animals and again confers a selective advantage.

Ah yes, that was it. I do not like, on purely theoretical grounds, the bland assumption that only selection drives evolution.

Please expand on this statement. What do you mean by "drives evolutoin"?

There are the hyperselectionists -- such as Dawkins -- that make the statement that natural selection accounts for all traits in all species. The pluralists -- such as Gould and Lewontin -- argued against this. Some traits are not direct products of natural selection -- such as male nipples and the spurs on the ankle bones in pandas.

Everyone agrees that natural selection is the only process that gives you the designsin organisms.

But I use it, I don't think too abusively, to refer to any situation that restricts interbreeding. Not all of these, of course, are geographic.

Not a good idea to invent your own definitions in science. Especially when you are discussing with non-scientists.

"Allopatry

The condition of two populations of the same species being separated by a geographic barrier that prevents them from interbreeding." http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Reference/dictionary/Biologie/A/354.html

Allopatry is specifically associated with geographical isolation. As you noted, you can have restrictions on interbreeding among populations in the same geographic area. In fact, Mayr lists the types of processes that result in reproductive isolation. However, each of these has different terms (such as ethnological isolation), so using "allopatry" in the general sense you do is actually confusing.

"Classification of Isolating Mechanisms

1. Premating or prezygotic mechanisms: Mechanisms that prevent interspecific matings.

(a) Potential mates are prevented from meeting (seasonal and habitat isolation)

(b) Behavioral incompatibilities prevent mating (ethological isolation)

© Copulation attempted but no transfer of sperm takes place (mechanical isolation)

2. Postmating or postzygotic mechanisms:

Mechanisms that reduce full success of interspecific crosses

(a) Sperm transfer takes place but egg not fertilized (gametic incompatibility)

(b) Egg fertilized but zygote dies (zygotic mortality)

© Zygote develops into an F1 hybrid of reduced viability (hybrid viability)

(d) F1 hybrid is fully viable but partially or completely sterile, or produces deficient F2 (hybrid sterility)"

Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is pg 171

Yup, we all agreed that as a definition of evolution.

No, we don't. In particular several very prominent evolutionary biologists do not agree that "change in allele frequency" is evolution. It is incomplete.

" 'Evolution' implies change with continuity, usually with a directional component. Biological evolution is best defined as change in the diversity and adaptation of populations of organisms." pg. 47

"No Darwinian I know questions the fact that the processes of organic evolution are consistent with the laws of the physical sciences, but it makes no sense to say that biological evolution has been "reduced" to physical laws. Biological evolution is the result of specific processes that impinge on specific systems, the explanation of which is meaningful only at the level of complexity of those processes and those systems. And the classical theory of evolution has not been reduced to a "molecular theory of evolution," an assertion based on such reductionist definitions of evolution as "a change in gene frequencies in natural populations." This reductionist definition omits the crucial aspects of evolution: changes in diversity and adaptation. (Once I gave a lump of sugar to a racoon in a zoo. He ran with it to his water basin and washed it vigorously until there was nothing left of it. No complex system should be taken apart to the extent that nothing of significance is left.)" Ernst Mayr, Evolution, Scientific American 239: 47-55, Sept. 1978.

A complete definition of evolution is given by Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology:

"Thus, evolution, in a broad sense is descent with modification, and often with diversification. Many kinds of systems are evolutionary ... In all such systems there are populations, or groups, of entities; there is variation in one or more characteristics among the members of the population; there is HEREDITARY SIMILARITY between parent and offspring entities; and over the course of generations there may be changes in the proportions of individuals with different characteristics within populations. This process consitutes descent with modification. Populations may become subdivided so that several populations are derived from a COMMON ANCESTRAL POPULATION. If different changes in the proportions of variant individuals transpire in te several populations,the populations DIVERGE, OR DIVERSIFY. ... All these properties of an evolutionary process pertain to populations of organisms, in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics (based on genes, composed of DNA or, in a few cases, RNA), variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several kinds of processes. Chief among these sorting processes are CHANCE (random variation in the survival or reproduction of different variants), and natural selection (consistent, nonrandom differences among variants in their rates of survival or reproduction). It is natural selection that causes adaptation -- improvement in function. Thus biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms , or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. ... Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (1999) pg 4. [emphasis in original]

Then give me a definition of "useful" that doesn't entail the definition of "do better" (or v.v.) A syllogism is a logical chain, as you put it, which admits of no possible exceptions. Empirical data, of course, always do.

I fail to see what H-W has to do with it. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that as all alleles at a locus are not in H-W equilibrium, selection must have occurred?

1. You need to go back and tell us why you need a definition of "useful" that doesn't entail the defintion of "do better". What we have from Darwin is " But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life;"

From Merriam-Webster:

"1 : capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose <useful tools>

2 : of a valuable or productive kind "

Now, where is "do better"?

2. Hardy-Weinberg gives you a starting point to determine what will happen if there is NOTHING acting on the population. That give us an objective place to determine if something is happening to the population. As you implied, the effect does not have to be natural selection. It can be genetic drift. BUT, there are mathematical tests to distinguish between the two. So, instead of having a judgement call of "do better", H-D serves as the objective scorekeeper. Once we identify alleles/traits that are increasing, eliminate genetic drift as the cause, then we can use reverse engineering to determine why they are doing better.

Sorry, but that is the way I and my mathematically inclined colleagues use the term "in general".

You still haven't provided a source for how your "colleagues" use the term. If they truly do, then they have written it down somewhere. All I'm asking you is to provide a source. Instead, you keep telling me to take your word for it. But that is the issue: are you stating the principle correctly. To decide that, we can't take your word.

[

quote]x is not true in general means that x is not always true. x not-true = x false.

If x is not always true, then x not-true is NOT = x false. For instance, to say "the statement 'the earth is flat' is false" is not to say " 'the earth is flat' is not always true" Because that implies that the earth can sometimes be flat.

How about this, as a slightly less jargonistic compromise?

 

The statement that x is true is not true in general, therefore the statement that x is true in general is false i.e. the statement that x is false in general is true? Any better?

Nope. Because 'x is true' is not the same statement as 'x is true in general'. You have added the phrase "in general" and, thus, changed the statement.

lucaspa: Actually, it's not the same street. What you had with the Pledge was the Congress inserting the words. As representatives of the majority -- theists.

 

Both USC 4 § 4:

and USC 31 § 5112 (d)(1):

are laws of the United States passed by Congress

Just what I said! Therefore they are not the courts pronouncing, but the majority stating their belief. Remember the claims! Your original claim was that the court decisions obtained by atheists were equivalent to the Pledge and the actions of judges (in their personal lives) wanting the 10 Commandments displayed in courtrooms or on their judicial robes.

Try to remember that we are not discussing whether the prejudice against atheists is correct or rational, just WHY there is such prejudice. Whether those reasons are ethical or rational is a separate issue.

It doesn't matter that they represent the majority or that the majority are theists. The 1st amendment explicitly states:

I know what the 1st Amendment states. But it does matter what the majority thinks when we are trying to find the reasons for prejudice or resentment of court decisions. Let's take this out of the theism vs atheism discussion for a minute and look at 2 other recent Supreme Court decisions. One is Bush v Gore in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount. You weren't angered by that? Didn't you feel that your beliefs in justice, accurate elections, and the choice of the American people was violated by the Supreme Court? I was and many other people were also.

Or take the recent decision regarding eminent domain. That private property could be taken by the state so that private developers could put up shopping malls, etc. that would then profit the developers. By far the majority thought that decision was not right, even tho the Supreme Court said it was constitutional!

The fact you have to come to grips with is that some theists feel the same way about Supreme Court decisions removing organized prayer from public schools, trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge, etc. Yes, it is justified by the Constitution, but they still feel it is wrong. Therefore there is resentment because they feel the courts are forcing -- in their opinion -- theism out and atheism in.

Also remember that, in other cases where people thought the Constitution was wrong, the Constitution was amended! The Constitution had slavery as legal and kept women from voting. Both changed by amendments. So, if enough Americans feel that the attempt to remove theism in general is wrong, they will eventually ammend the Constitution and then you won't even have the argument of unconstitutionality.

Atheists must convince theists that they should keep the Establishment Clause and that atheists should be protected by it against the establishment of generic theism as a religion. If they continue to alienate the vast majority, then the protection will be removed.

I emphatically think such a removal would be very wrong. Which makes my emphasis more on 1) why theists would see such a removal as a "good" thing and 2) the tactics that would convince theists that atheism deserves protection by the Establishment Clause.

It's basically a moot point though because you'll never get a court full of theist judges to interpret the constitutionality of these congressional actions. They will simply find one legal particular or another to avoid the issue as they have thus far.

I disagree. Altho I think that, right now, you should be happy the Supreme Court is not judging the constitutionality. You could easily get a judgement you don't like (and that I would regard as wrong). As I said, since we have a lag in the perception of atheism as a rational faith, the judges could decide that "under God" is permissable as long as you don't say WHICH god. Display of the 10 Commandments would be out as they specify a particular god.

[qutoe]Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a faith or religion. It is not a belief system.

The about.com definition is flawed and is selective data. It is designed to hide that atheism is a faith. Which is what I was talking about as one of the reasons for the prejudice against atheists: many dishonestly try to deny atheism is a faith.

"Atheism (Greek a, "not"; theos, "god"), doctrine that denies the existence of deity. Atheism differs distinctly from agnosticism, the doctrine that the existence of deity can be neither proved nor disproved. Many people have incorrectly been called atheists merely because they rejected some popular belief in divinity.1"

1"Atheism," Microsoft® Encarta® 96 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. © Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Atheism«AY thee ihz uhm», is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief that God exists." Ivan Soll, "Atheism," World Book Online Americas Edition, http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/wbol/wbPage/na/ar/co/035360,November 4, 2001.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WHATISPOSATH "since no gods exist"

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any."

"Atheism -- the belief that there are no gods." Douglas A. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introductory Course, pg 19.

What's worse, the about.com position is untenable. You can't simply have a "lack of belief" as atheism uses the term. In order to continue to be an atheist, you MUST make positive statements of faith. In particular, you must make the positive statement of faith that "natural" = "without God". That is part of the statement at the atheist.org site.

"lack of belief" is semantically = to "believe the opposite". To say "I lack belief that deity exists" is the same as saying "I believe deity does not exist." The only reason to use "lack of belief" is to try to hide that atheism is a belief/faith.

Think about this: one reason evolutionists have such dislike and prejudice against IDers is that they try to say their belief is not a belief. Same thing here.

You ignored that, before 1858, atheism was not a rational faith. Therefore, the faith aspect was more clearly visible.

I'm not asking the government to declare that God doesn't exist of to deny any God.

Of course not. After all, you say atheism isn't saying that.

I simply want the government to remain officially neutral with no claim that God does or does not exist.

If atheism is "lack of belief", then why would the government ever declare "Gopd does not exist"? You betrayed the true nature of atheism in these quotes. If your side is "God does not exist", then that is a positive faith, not simply "lack of belief"!

The fact that theists argue so strongly that our government should keep these declarations that God exists is what is arrogant.

It's defensive, not arrogant. Defensive because they are being forced by the courts to give up declarations that they think are true. They are not being given any rational arguments -- from within the premises of theism -- why they should take the statements out.

Atheists are arrogant because they want the government to remain neutral? Don't you think that claim is arrogant?

Read what I wrote: "4. In their arrogance, atheists have failed to make use of the "do unto others ..." argument that would have helped theists understand the atheist position and given theists an argument within theism to agree with the atheist position."

The arrogance comes from 2: "2. Atheists have generally not been sensitive to the feelings of theists on the matter. They have used force in the form of the courts instead of trying to engage theists in dialogue and explain their position. IOW, atheists have often been arrogant."

The arrogance comes from

1. using the courts to enforce the atheist position instead of engaging in dialogue with theists and trying to convince them. So yes, atheists have displayed arrogance because they went directly to the courts instead of trying politics and trying to get people to agree voluntarily to their position and what constitutes "neutrality". From the position of your opponents, "under God" IS neutral, because it doesn't advance a particular religion. Instead of arrogantly using ONLY the courts, atheists should have tried using dialogue.

2. Failing to use a powerful argument that would appeal to theists because it comes from theism. The arrogance involved is in thinking that theism has no merit and deserves no respect, therefore using arguments from within theism is beneath atheists.

3. Failing to reach out to theists like myself that agree with them. Instead of finding common ground and listening, all theists are rejected because the arrogance says "we don't need you or your arguments".

Why is there some burden on atheists to do anything to achieve a government for all that makes no declarations of some supernatural belief?

For the same reason there was a burden on abolitionists to do something to achieve a government where liberty was a right for everyone or for feminists to achieve a government where the right to vote applied to women.

One problem you are facing is that theists have evidence for belief in the supernatural. Either their personal experience of deity or accounts of experience that the theists trusts is true. So you have a burden to show 1) that atheism is a rational position and 2) generic expressions of an entity for which theists have (personally) convincing evidence should not be stated in public.

Now, if you insist that atheism is simply "lack of belief", then all you have done is say that you don't agree with theism. So what? The Pledge doesn't require you to AGREE that the US is "under God", anymore than it requires you to AGREE that the US is "one nation". You could be an unreconstructed Southerner that still thinks the South should be independent. The Southerner would have a "lack of belief" that the US should be one nation.

The argument of proponents of organized school prayer would say that you are not required to recite a prayer. If you only have a "lack of belief", then other people saying a generic prayer doesn't establish any particular religion. Religion being, in your own argument, a particular version of theism. Theism in general would NOT be a religion, but rather an established "fact".

As I think on this, ONLY if atheism is a faith would the Establishment Clause apply. Then the government would be attempting to establish a religion that is different from the faith ("religion") of atheism. But as long as it is maintained that atheism is simply "lack of belief", then as long as the government doesn't endorse a particular belief (religion), then it is fine. You could get the 10 Commandments from being displayed, but couldn't stop the hanging of pictures of Buddha, Jesus, and Vishnu in public schools (as long as it was all of them) or the organized generic prayer to deity. There would be no establishment of "religion".

Yeah, as I think about this, as long as atheism is maintained as "lack of belief", then it has no standing in regard to the establishment of "religion".

OTOH, if atheism is a positive belief (as it is), then any expression of theism, no matter how generic, would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Whatever you say.

The evolutionary geneticist hadn't read chapter 3 of Origin of Species? You could be a bit more gracious in admitting that the idea was in error.

Please don't lecture me on evolutionary genetics. What you say is manifestly true (by observation), but, logically, "useful" is predicated on "do better". It's not a syllogism (but it's still true, empirically)

The logical chain is still a syllogism. It's just that the syllogism has been confirmed by empirical observation. There are objective criteria that can be used to assess "do better". Since you don't want me to lecture you on evolutionary genetics, I will only remind you of Hardy-Weinberg.

You don't need a source, it's elementary. x is false = x is not true. x is "false in general" means that, whenever x might be true, it may sometimes not be true, what's so radical?

Yes, I do need a source. Because we have the situation x is not true in some situations. That is not the same as saying "x is not true". That statement has the implied "x is not true AT ALL"

"false in general" is not the same as "sometimes may not be true. "in general" refers to a majority of the time. "sometimes" refers to much less than 50% of the time.

So I also need as source that equates "in general" with "sometimes'.

Thank you.

Manufacturing has variation above the molecular level,

Please tell me an assembly line that turns out hammers or screws with variations above the trivial molecular level.

Humans do seem to be obsessed with fighting variation, which seems to be the natural order. So, if you see life with no variation, exact replicas, maybe that is a sign of intelligent design, or manufacture?

It can't be, because you see the organisms replicate and there is no intelligence in sight, is there?

Creationists often try to say that some organisms -- horseshoe crabs, sharks, for instance -- are "unchanged" for tens of millions of years. However, this is untrue. Altho the basic shape is similar, the species of horseshoe crab that exists today is different than those in the past.

Also, there are actually 3 forms of natural selection:

1. Directional. This is the one that is usually considered, and the one that changes a population as the environment changes.

2. Stabilizing selection. Once a population reaches a "fitness peak" and is well-adapted to the environment, further changes will actually make the individual LESS fit for that particular environment. So, as long as the environment remains constant, natural selection will actually act to prevent change to the population and instead narrow the variation to the optimum for that particular environment.

3. Disruptive selection. This happens when a population has wide geographical range and faces different environments in different parts of the range. There is a tendency for directional selection to adapt the sub-populatoins to the particular environments, but gene flow between populations counters that. If for any reason, there is a disruption of gene flow, you get separate species. This is what happens in "ring species".

As we both noted, human manufacture does have minor variation: each hammer is not identical if you would analyze it in enough detail. There would be irregularities at the level of the atom between different hammers. Because of the second law of thermodynamics, complete replication is not possible. It's just that the differnces between hammers is too minor to matter. Also, because hammers don't replicate over generations, it is not possible to accumulate differences to turn a claw hammer to a sledge hammer.

BUT, in living organisms you have an amplification mechanism -- development -- that turns the molecular variations at the DNA level to macro differences at the level of the organism. Also, differences accumulate because of natural selection. So the minor changes are additive, not isolated like they are in manufactured artifacts, and you can get the equivalent of turning a claw hammer into a sledge hammer.

Manufactured artifacts are isolated. You make one hammer. Then you make another. But in biological organisms you have the equivalent of one hammer making another hammer. The hammers are connected by ancestor-descent.

That's a two way street there. Consider the theists that are spreading religious endorsement by amending things like the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" or religious judges trying to adorn the courthouse yard with a lone monument to the 10 commandments. I seem to remember one judge that even had his robe embroidered with the 10 commandments.

Actually, it's not the same street. What you had with the Pledge was the Congress inserting the words. As representatives of the majority -- theists. What you have with the actions of judges you mention are not their rulings from the bench, but expression of their personal beliefs. Which are then suppressed by rulings from the bench.

These are not acts of a secular government.

Yes, they are when taken in historical context. Altho most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, they established a secular government. However, before 1858, atheism simply wasn't a rational faith. It was an irrational position and thus was safely ignored.

Therefore we could have saying like "in God we trust" on our currency because it did not support a particular form of theism -- and thus is "secular".

After 1858, atheism was a rational faith. But atheists didn't advocate for consideration of their beliefs under the First Amendment until Madeleine O'Hare in the 1960s. And then atheists didn't go thru the Executive or Legislative branches of the government. IOW, they didn't try to convince the majority of the population that atheism was a rational belief and that phrases like "in God we trust" represented an endorsement by government of the general religion of theism as opposed to the general religoin of atheism.

Instead, they had the courts enforce their views. The key here is "enforce". They didn't "convince" or get consensus, but used force.

Then again, I've met very few Christians that actually want a secular government.

Then you haven't met many Christians. The major opposition to teaching creationism in public schools has come from Christians. There are very few, or no, Fundamentalists that want a secular government. They actually want a theocracy.

Can you blame atheists for opposing this?

No. Applying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", I as a Christian understand how theists have unintentionally but thoughtlessly endorsed a religion: theism. They didn't mean to, because they weren't thinking in terms of theism vs atheism, but instead of endorsing particular forms of theism (Christianity) over others.

Why are efforts to enforce secularism considered atheist?

1. We simply haven't caught up to the reality that atheism is a rational faith and, therefore, must be respected as such in the First Amendment.

2. Atheists have generally not been sensitive to the feelings of theists on the matter. They have used force in the form of the courts instead of trying to engage theists in dialogue and explain their position. IOW, atheists have often been arrogant.

3. Atheists have generally been reluctant to acknowledge, or resistant to the fact, that atheism is a faith. Therefore they have not availed themselves of the argument of protection under the Establishment Clause. Instead, the arguments have been an attack on theism as the "only" religion involved.

4. In their arrogance, atheists have failed to make use of the "do unto others ..." argument that would have helped theists understand the atheist position and given theists an argument within theism to agree with the atheist position.

5. There is the, IMO, minor problem that there are demagogues within theism that want to misrepresent the issue. However, IMO these demagogues could be marginalized if atheists would have pursued 2-4 more agressively.

For instance, my parents have sometimes gotten upset with some of the removals. My father wondered why the 10 Commandments couldn't be displayed outside a courthouse. Certainly we could all agree on "Thou shalt not commit murder", "Thou shalt not steal" etc. as a basis for justice. And we can. But as soon as I pointed out the first 2 Commandments and the effect on Hindus, Native Americans, and atheists, then he immediately understood that those Commandments promoted a particular deity and religion and not rules for justice.

Rebiu,

 

Not to derail the thread in semantic debate, but atheism and agnosticism have different academic and non-academic meanings (kinda like the way "theory" in science and "theory" in informal discussions with your friends have two totally different meanings). Academically speaking, certainty has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism and theism have to do with what you believe, whether the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero; agnosticism has to do with what you think you can know, such as whether you think the nature of God is fundamentally knowable through logic or science.

I agree that theism and atheism is about belief. And that agnosticism is about knowledge. However, to do a bit of semantics, when you say that "the nature of God is fundamentally unknowable through logic or science" you are stating a belief.

Agnosticism, as used originally by Huxley, was simply an "I don't know whether deity exists or not". Somewhere since, some people have tried to tack the idea that the existence of deity is unknowable. I don't see how you can speak for all the future of what science and logic can do. Based on what we know now, science does not know whether deity exists or not. But to extrapolate that to unknowable is also a form of belief.

People can be agnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, but also say that concepts of gods arent subject to rational discourse),

That is not tenable. Because theists do have rational discourse on the subject. Also, "don't believe" is logically not tenable. What you have to have are some positive beliefs in order to be atheistic.

gnostic atheists

Semantically, I would dispute your use of the term "gnostic". According to Webster's "gnostic" has only one meaning:

" an adherent of gnosticism"

Gnosticism is a particular form of theism. Therefore to attempt to use "gnostic" as any description of atheism or of theism in general is semantically invalid.

So there are 3 axes of belief:

1) atheism / theism axis

2) agnosticism / gnosticism axis

3) certainty / doubt

That second axis doesn't exist. It is semantically invalid because agnostic and gnostic don't mean what you are trying to use them for.

Your atheism/theism axis includes the middle ground of agnosticism. What you are trying to do with the agnosticism/gnosticism axis is delineate the ways people justify atheism or theism. I submit that this isn't necessary the way you are doing it. The justification within the atheism/theism axis boils down to one thing: evidence. What people consider valid evidence and what evidence they personally have.

A lot of websites like to say "there are no such things as atheists, because they cant be absolutely certain without being god themselves, so they are agnostics", which is pretty absurd because even if it were true, all of those agnostics can count the number of gods they worship on no hands.

Of couse it is absurd, because they are equating atheism with certainty when it is a belief. However, they do have a point because many atheists mistakenly ascribe certainty to atheism.

When i watch the tv i see half a dozen religious channels preaching their creeds. Yet to see an atheist one. On the news i see mullahs and priests and bishops pronouncing, denouncing and pontificating.

True, but that isn't where the theists are looking. Instead, they are looking at the cases the atheists bring in court. The case to have a monument of the 10 Commandments removed from a courthouse, to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge, and to remove a cross from public land.

The perceived attack by atheists doesn't come open in the media or public discourse, but thru the backdoor of the courts under the aegis of the First Amendment. Therefore the massive amount of public support for theism doesn't count. Theists perceive that their beliefs are being persecuted by the minority.

Where are these 'vocal' atheists? Perhaps you are prefering to the rather lonely Richard Dawkins?

He's not that lonely. Add Peter Atkins, PZ Meyer ("best" science blog according to Nature), William Provine, Daniel Dennett, EO Wilson, etc. All of these have launched very public (in the media) attacks on theism in the wake of the decision in the Dover PA trial on ID. PZ Meyer attacked Kenneth Miller, of all people, for even daring to suggest that science and religion can co-exist. I'll get the blog site for you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060116/cm_usatoday/letsacceptthefaultlinebetweenfaithandscience

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/01/29/supernatural_selection/

i dunno.

i actually think it's a good thing that athiests are getting the religious hate.

athiests aren't exactly likely to start a war over it. if a war happens to start, most will try to stay out of it anyway.

There aren't enough atheists to have a war. Nor are they really associated with a nation-state. The greater danger, IMO, is that atheists would end up like the gypsies and Jews in Nazi Germany or Christians in the Soviet Union: subjected to extreme discrimination or killed.

A war where one side can't fight back effectively is called a "massacre".

However, if the Fundies have their way, IMO the atheists will be followed by the agnostics and then Christians.

I'd say that you're correct. The thick part and curve at the bottom is probably part of the environment around the cell. Probably some water combined with various glycoproteins/ other cell matrix materials producing a kind of jelly effect. The object within is probably a White blood cells (a.k.a. leukocytes).

 

Staining it would really help but it does look somewhat like one of these no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukocyte

I think so. I'd say "monocyte" but it could easily be one of the granulocytes. The OPer said he got this from a sample of pus. So the thick part would be consistent with water combined with proteins/components left over from dead bacteria and cells. We don't know much more about the processing of the tissue, and I don't think the poster has access to stains, unfortunately.

i posted the site, but i see it didnt come up. i know nothing about biology i just thought it was interesting to post. Perhaps i should have said Devolution? is that even a real word?

No. And the common usage wouldn't appy here anyway.

What the authors are doing is retracing evolution on a molecular level. NOT doing evolution in reverse.

The research is showing how things got to be the way there are today by means of evolution.

In this case, there was gene duplication -- a well-known phenomenon where the mistake in copying DNA results in 2 copies of the same gene. Now, while the original copy continues to do the job, the second copy can change without any penalty to the animal. After all, the original job is still covered.

In gene duplications known to date, the changes came in the coding region -- the areas that tell what the amino acid sequence of the protein is. The different types of collagen arose this way.

However, in this case the amino acid sequence of the protein for Hox1 is the same. What changed was the regulatory sequence. Remember, proteins are not turned on all the time in all cells. The regulatory sequence tells when to turn on the gene and have it make the protein. It is part of the gene but the DNA sequence that is the regulatory sequence lies in front of the sequence for the protein.

Here the regulatory sequence changed so that Hox1 is expressed at different times in different cells. Same protein doing 2 different things in the development of the central nervous system depending on which cells make it and when in development they make it. By making Hox1 later in development, it allows the new trait of facial expression.

Actually, it is, for precisely the reason lucapsa said: geometric population increase. Since all animals have more offspring than are needed to replace them, yet we aren't knee-deep in cockroaches, we must conclude that not all of those offspring survive, ergo the stuggle for existence.

 

Mokele

Thank you. Darwin also, in Chapter 3, documented many cases of the struggle for existence. The geometric increase is the cause of the struggle, but the struggle itself can be observed, often directly.

Look, I'm not going to argue philosophy, but the major premise is observed, the minor is assumed; it is not logically self-evident that this is true, unless one looks at the "conclusion first. Anyway, drop it, it's not important.

Now you've made it important. By saying the minor premise -- struggle for existence -- is "assumed". It's demonstrated. Darwin spent an entire chapter on the "Struggle for Existence". http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_03.html

What you are saying is "assumed" is that the "fittest survive". The problem there is that you are using the soundbite of natural selection to be all of natural selection. It's not. "Survival of the fittest" is the soundbite version. Like all soundbites, it is not totally accurate.

What natural selection says is that variations useful to the organism will do better in the struggle for existence and those variations will be passed to the offspring. Over time, the accumulation of new variations will change a population and transform a population.

One says that x is false in general if one can't find a proof that rigourously exludes not-x. And proofs do not, in general, come from data, these are merely probabilities. But, if you conclude from the data that there are exceptions to x, you are entitled to say "not true (i.e. false) in general" (As it happens, Lewontin is my hero, so I would agree with him, wouldn't I?)

Can you please find me a source for that "one says that x is false in general"? I've never come across that phrase in all my reading. Also please find a source that "not true in general" = "false". I've always seen "false" associated with being "totally wrong", not with "not true in general".

Thank you.

Indeed. I would bet a large percentage of Americans are nearly non-practicing, basically secular Christians. But that does make the anti-atheist prejudice all the stranger. I don't understand it, but I'll give it some thought.

The general figure given is 10% agnostic + atheist, so 3% atheist fits within the range.

As you said, I expect the prejudice to be strong among Fundamentalists, and they are 50% or so of Americans these days. However, in order to have these results, there must be a considerable amount of prejudice among mainline Christians. And that is surprising.

I speculate that much of the prejudice arises because atheism has been pushing back traditional expressions of religion -- no organized school prayer, no display of the 10 Commandments, removal of a large picture of Jesus from my former grade school, etc. Therefore atheism is viewed as an agressor to theism. Couple this with the attitude of many atheists that atheism is not a faith and is epistemologically superior to theism and you have the appearance that it is atheism that is intolerant and seeks to destroy theism and theists. For the poster who wondered why atheists would be put lower than Muslims (who were mistakenly equated with terrorists), there is your answer. Atheism is perceived as just as intolerant as radical Islam and bent on the destruction of theists.

Most Christians recognize that the claim of epistemological superiority is bogus, but don't know why and can't articulate an argument against it. This inability leads to frustration and might also contribute to the prejudice.

Dak also has a point. Even Hinduism is moving toward monotheism. So it is only atheism that is outside the fold of "in God we trust".

AzurePhoenix: "The conservative view towards atheists that I've noticed always seems to associate them with things like satanism, communism, anarchism and fascism. There's lots of misunderstanding in there."

Remember that Fundamentalism is also an intolerant faith. Therefore they wish total hegemony for their faith (which isn't theism, BTW). Atheists for Fundies serve the same purpose as Jews for Nazism: a convenient bogeyman to rally against.

thats beautiful. thick membrane

I don't think the thick portion is the membrane. I think it is an artifact of the processing. I suspect it is the edges of the liquid in which the cell is suspended -- the rest has dried up. The cell membrane parallels the thick part just inside it.

So how fast do I haft to go to get lift from a sphere?

Depends on the mass of the sphere. There are equations to calculate that.

I'm sure a google search would find them.

i challenge your challenge: several people have ethics that apply to animals. IMM is an ethical vegan; i wont eat lamb because i think it's harsh to kill young animals for food. several people descide to have ethics that only apply1 to us but apply2 other species aswell

Your "challenge" consists of personal opinion -- what you decide to do for yourself. That's not the same as a universal, objective ethic. Is it ethical to kill young animals for food? Yes. Do you eat eggs?

(ie, i doubt imm thinks woulves are bad for being non-veggies (ie, the ethic doens't apply1 to animals), but i think her 'dont eat meat' ethic excludes more than just eating human (ie, the ethic applies2 to non-humans).

You say ethics by humans must not only apply to other humans but other species. However, you say that ethics does not apply to other species. That's where the logical disconnect comes in and what undermines your argument. Ethics need to be universal, otherwise you can't use them to tell us what we ought to do. If ethics are relative, and only apply where you want them to because this is what you want, then you have special pleading. Your argument is that it is unethical to kill living beings not only within your species but outside your species. However, that argument must apply to ALL species. So it is also unethical for wolves to kill.

Uou are still working with human ethics -- what humans decide is ethical. You simply want to extend human ethics to other animals. That is a desire of yours, but it is not an ethical imperative or rule.

The rest of us say we should treat animals humanely, but this is based on the idea that humans who wantonly mistreat animals are going to mistreat humans, also.

Where I slightly disagree with you, though it's not a point I would want to press, is that Darwinian theory is syllologistic in the usual sense of the term. I don't know if philosophers would recognize the word "antisyllogism", but that's really what it is: we see the survivors, we know there's a stuggle, we assume the survors are the fittest.

A syllogism is a form of argument. Two premises and a conclusion. Darwin has those premises. You can find them in the "ifs":

1. Variation.

2. Struggle for existence (deriving from geometric increase in population)

Conclusion: variations beneficial to the organism will be selected.

It's not an "assumption" that the survivors are the fittest. Population genetics demonstrated that by looking at traits/designs and the environment. It was easy to reverse engineer the environment to show that the designs selected did work better in the environment. The peppered moth in England is one example.

One recent study where the "fittest" were predicted ahead of time is here:

Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. Science 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

The mistake, in my opnion, is that made by people like Des Morris, who went that one step too far: if it exists today, it must have been selected for, which we now know to be false in general

This is the idea that EVERY trait is under natural selection. It is also Dawkins' position. Gould, Lewontin, and others argued against it. I would agree that it is false, but that is my conclusion from the data. However, Dawkins and others have not reached the same conclusion and the argument continues. So I'm not at the point where I can say we "know to be false in general". I can point to examples and say "selection doesn't account for that particular trait" but I certainly can't say that "in general" traits that are in existence were not selected for.

I wonder if there is ANY process that doesn't have variation?

Human manufacture. We turn out hammers, screws, etc that are identical. The degree of how identical depends on the precision of the machine tools.

You can quibble that there is variation at the molecular level, but at the level of "trait", each hammer or screw is identical.

 

I call red herring. What wolves do is irrelevant and has nothing to do with our behavior.

It is totally relevant. You are saying that human morals are true irrespective of species. That is, it is wrong for one species (human) to kill another species in order to survive or improve the lives of that species.

Now, if your ethics are not just special pleading, then the idea of "no species barrier" must apply to all species, not just humans. But wolves kill members of other species every day. Why is this not wrong?

Are you going to exempt eating? Well then, the second website of the OP is exempt also, because those chickens are being killed for food. However, doesn't eating fall within the broader category of "benefit"? Eating allows the wolves to live longer and better lives. After all, starvation is not pleasant.

So, if we kill animals in the process of research to provide longer and better lives for humans, what's the difference?

We we reject anthropocentricism, yet still insist that human have basic rights to live and to be free from torture, then we can say animals have the same rights, and their rights would be based on nothing more than a logical extension of the humanistic principles that people already hold. So rejecting anthropocentric ethics leads very naturally and easily toward rejecting the permissibility of animal experimentation.

But that rejection of "anthropocentrism" is not held to. As I pointed out earlier, you have no problems destroying habitat of animals for farmland to grow the food you need to survive! So, is starvation not a form of torture? It is defined so by the Geneva Conventions for humans. Yet by depriving animals of their habitat, you condemn them to starvation. But no outcry there.

The postion of animal rights advocates is hypocrisy pure and simple. They simply have too much wealth and time on their hands.