Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
The All Purpose SCIENTIFIC Debate Thread (Former Evo Thread)
you know, when i really think about it, maybe they should teach ID next to evolution. When students see how little sense ID makes and how much sense evolution makes, maybe they will make a good decision.
to a child, I'm sure that evolution makes little sense as well.
Snobbish may be the wrong word, let's just say they're all to happy to call them stupid and mock their core belief system as childish fairy-tales. This sort of mocking attitude has never helped a situation.
I see nothing wrong with this, since it's true. There's nothing different between believing in God or Jesus and the Tooth Fairy or Santa, except one ends when you're 10 years old and the other one rakes in billions and billions of dollars a year from suckers.
No one should be afraid of telling it like it is. It's why I love that the "PC is bad" crowd is almost all filled with theists. You can't be PC until you start talking about their religion. Then you must be PC or face their wrath and that of their "God".
Here's another big difference: while atheists and various others might say stuff like "religion is irrational" or "the Christian fairy tale is no more believable than Xenu" over the internet or amongst each other, rarely do you hear about theists being harangued publicly over their beliefs. Nor do you see scientists demanding access to a church in order to deliver a lecture on why the beliefs of those attending are incorrect. But this is exactly what the religious fundamentalists do when they try to force their personal belief systems onto others and into the classroom as science.
Woodrow Wilson, PHD:
"...Like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."
Nearly 100 years later and we're still arguing about this. Pathetic.
Woodrow Wilson, PHD:
"...Like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."
Nearly 100 years later and we're still arguing about this. Pathetic.
But to be fair, Joeseppi, Glenn Beck hates that guy (Wilson), so any point he had about anything isn't important to the idiots who choose to believe fairy tales over science.
One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.
Not saying this as a disproof or criticism of evolution, BTW. It's just a question that bugs me.
One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.
Not saying this as a disproof or criticism of evolution, BTW. It's just a question that bugs me.
Bears with lighter coloured fur hid in the snow and survived better than black/brown bears, and over many generations, all the bears in the area with black/brown fur died out because of it for one reason or another.
I'm not sure you understand what evolution is at all if you couldn't figure that out. It's the same as anything else.
A black bear didn't give birth to a white bear. Slightly lighter colored bears gave birth to similarly light colored bears, and the lightest fur of those were the ones that had an easier time surviving. Those that survived gave birth to similarly colored bears, and of those, the ones with the lightest fur survived better. Repeat until bears are white.
Last edited by Joey Hoser: 08-25-2011 at 10:51 AM.
One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.
Not saying this as a disproof or criticism of evolution, BTW. It's just a question that bugs me.
Sheesh.
Instead of being lazy, go find out how it works by yourself.
Let me help you a little. There's this nice place called "google" where you can put in a question and web sites from professionals like this one pop up and you can learn.
I really don't get this "I don't understand x, so I'm confused" attitude. All of this is available for free if you put a little effort in (and really, it's just typing a few words into a keyboard and hitting enter). It's no wonder why so many people are so ignorant. They don't even know how to find out answers to questions on their own.
And sorry about the *****-ish tone, but it really amazes me that people can have so little interest in learning things on their own.
ETA: Oh, and just in case people are even too lazy to click a link, here's the answer:
Quote:
Somewhere during the mid-Pleistocene period (roughly 100,000 to 250,000 years ago), a number of brown (same as grizzly) bears (Ursos arctos) probably became isolated by glaciers. many probably perished on the ice; however, they apparently did not all disappear. Some survived due to the fact that "organisms vary" (Steve Gould's terminology and logic is used here), that is, every litter of grizzly's has a variation in coat thickness, coat color etc. which imparted a slight evolutionary advantage to some indivials of each litter. These successful individuals underwent an apparent rapid (rapid, probably because of the small population, and extreme selection pressure) series of evolutionary changes in order to survive (note they were not necessarily "better" in any absolute sense, or on any absolute "bear" scale of perfection - they were simply more in keeping with their new environment than their siblings). Today, polar bears are adapted to their harsh northern environment.
I think Finland should have a higher percentage, because there was a research published yesterday according to which 4 out 5 Finns think strictly religious people are intolerant. 3 out of 5 Finns also think religions cause more disagreements than peace. 8% percent of Finns consider themselves very religious where as less than 5% don't consider themselves religious at all. 50 000 people from 34 countries took part in this, and it was done in 2008.
I think that's a bit misleading . . I doubt that the percentage of belief is that low nationwide - perhaps in some regions (cough south cough) but I would bet the VAST majority of Americans north of the Mason Dixon Line believe is some sort of evolution.
Instead of being lazy, go find out how it works by yourself.
Let me help you a little. There's this nice place called "google" where you can put in a question and web sites from professionals like this one pop up and you can learn.
I really don't get this "I don't understand x, so I'm confused" attitude. All of this is available for free if you put a little effort in (and really, it's just typing a few words into a keyboard and hitting enter). It's no wonder why so many people are so ignorant. They don't even know how to find out answers to questions on their own.
And sorry about the *****-ish tone, but it really amazes me that people can have so little interest in learning things on their own.
ETA: Oh, and just in case people are even too lazy to click a link, here's the answer:
It's really not that hard, people...
It really isn't, is it...and it just seems so obvious if you don't have your brain befuddled with a lot of Sunday School indoctrination.
But I've also read about the role that mutation has played at various times. Some guesswork at this point, but there has been what amounted to evolutionary leaps at times which was the direct result of (gene?) mutation.
I think that's a bit misleading . . I doubt that the percentage of belief is that low nationwide - perhaps in some regions (cough south cough) but I would bet the VAST majority of Americans north of the Mason Dixon Line believe is some sort of evolution.
Dunno if I'd say "vast", but there's definitely a higher acceptance of evolution in the New England and northwestern states than most of the rest of the nation, which pretty much correlates perfectly with religious belief.
A black bear didn't give birth to a white bear. Slightly lighter colored bears gave birth to similarly light colored bears, and the lightest fur of those were the ones that had an easier time surviving. Those that survived gave birth to similarly colored bears, and of those, the ones with the lightest fur survived better. Repeat until bears are white.
Yes, I get that that is the theory. Fully understood.
Now, go put a brown bear in a snowdrift and tell me it's camoflaged better than a black bear.
See my point here? We're talking about SNOW. Being slightly a slightly lighter shade of brown doesn't help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7
Sheesh.
Instead of being lazy, go find out how it works by yourself.
And sorry about the *****-ish tone, but it really amazes me that people can have so little interest in learning things on their own.
You know what amazes me? People who take a condescending tone and then utterly fail to understand the question.
Take a closer look at the link you cited.
Quote:
These successful individuals underwent an apparent rapid (rapid, probably because of the small population, and extreme selection pressure) series of evolutionary changes in order to survive (note they were not necessarily "better" in any absolute sense, or on any absolute "bear" scale of perfection - they were simply more in keeping with their new environment than their siblings). Today, polar bears are adapted to their harsh northern environment.
Note the use of the word "apparent". Meaning, something apparently happened but it is not verified by an observable fossil record. The explanation given is simply filling in the gap with our general knowledge of natural selection.
I'm not a freakin' idiot. I studied biology at the university level, read Gould, and have a perfectly fine grasp of how natural selection works. What I am asking is how a species can possibly have an "evolutionary advantage" against a white background, unless it is in fact a very light color to begin with. Being less-dark isn't much of a survival aid.
And for that matter, Gould argues pretty convincingly that the pure-selection model in your link above is in fact an incomplete picture that ignores rapid mutation. So get out of here with the attitude.
Yes, I get that that is the theory. Fully understood.
Now, go put a brown bear in a snowdrift and tell me it's camoflaged better than a black bear.
See my point here? We're talking about SNOW. Being slightly a slightly lighter shade of brown doesn't help.
Sure it does. You don't need perfect camouflage. Polar bears aren't even pure white, they're kinda yellow.
Quote:
I'm not a freakin' idiot. I studied biology at the university level, read Gould, and have a perfectly fine grasp of how natural selection works. What I am asking is how a species can possibly have an "evolutionary advantage" against a white background, unless it is in fact a very light color to begin with. Being less-dark isn't much of a survival aid.
Obviously, you didn't pay any attention, because if you think this is a valid point, then you don't understand what evolution says at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.
Note the use of the word "apparent". Meaning, something apparently happened but it is not verified by an observable fossil record. The explanation given is simply filling in the gap with our general knowledge of natural selection.
This is classic "moving the goalpost". You asked how it was possible. The answer was easy to find, so I called you out on it.
Of course it "apparently" happened because, as any real scientist would be aware of, nothing is certain in evolutionary biology. To expect certainty is to be, sorry to be blunt, quite dumb.
And sorry about the "condescending" attitude, but you need to understand that it's not an attack on you, but rather on a certain action you make. The only thing that is making it condescending to you is your ego.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
I'm not a freakin' idiot. I studied biology at the university level, read Gould, and have a perfectly fine grasp of how natural selection works. What I am asking is how a species can possibly have an "evolutionary advantage" against a white background, unless it is in fact a very light color to begin with. Being less-dark isn't much of a survival aid.
As noted in the link, the evolutionary advantage is based on more than just the colour. Coat size, overall size and dietary adaption also played a factor in the natural selection of polar bears. Also, since they're predators, even a lighter coat would be advantageous as camouflage. If we were talking about a prey animal like a caribou or horse, you might have a case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
And for that matter, Gould argues pretty convincingly that the pure-selection model in your link above is in fact an incomplete picture that ignores rapid mutation.
I see nothing wrong with this, since it's true. There's nothing different between believing in God or Jesus and the Tooth Fairy or Santa, except one ends when you're 10 years old and the other one rakes in billions and billions of dollars a year from suckers.
No one should be afraid of telling it like it is. It's why I love that the "PC is bad" crowd is almost all filled with theists. You can't be PC until you start talking about their religion. Then you must be PC or face their wrath and that of their "God".
Feel free to do so but just be aware that this attitude is entirely confrontational and will never resolve anything, rather it encourages places like the Southern States to try and legislate stuff like creationism back into the classroom. I find this completely unnecessary as there are plenty of people able to believe in both God and evolution, it doesn't have to be one or the other. While both sides are guilty of making it seem otherwise I tend to hold the evolution side to a higher standard as they claim to be the smart ones.
Although personally I've always wondered about the intelligence or sensibility of someone who can't differentiate between a guy that historical evidence suggests did actually exist, the real question being did he have super powers or was he just a regular dude who people followed for his wisdom (like Gandhi), vs completely fictional beings meant to amuse little children
Feel free to do so but just be aware that this attitude is entirely confrontational and will never resolve anything, rather it encourages places like the Southern States to try and legislate stuff like creationism back into the classroom.
Wait, what? You do understand that it was the Creationists that were in the classroom first, and that they're not getting it "back" into the classroom now, but rather trying their damnedest to keep it there.
The fact is the reason for the "confrontational" attitude is because nothing else works. Ridicule is the only way to respond to their tactics, since they're completely unwilling to be reasonable about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV
I find this completely unnecessary as there are plenty of people able to believe in both God and evolution, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
True, but at the core of the reason to keep Creationism out of the school is that belief in God is not rational. As I stated earlier, from a reality standpoint, I don't have a problem with people believing in God, as long as they understand their belief is irrational, and don't use it to block anything that is rational. The fact is, when I say belief in God is a childish fairytale, I'm not saying that I have a problem with them believing it, just that I think they're not that reasonable to do so.
The fact is a lot of people who are otherwise rational do believe in God. Most of them, when faced with this criticism, shrug and basically agree with you, but say they feel fine giving it special pleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV
While both sides are guilty of making it seem otherwise I tend to hold the evolution side to a higher standard as they claim to be the smart ones.
Higher standard to what level? Do you think the action of ridicule is for the dumb? Why is it that you think "smart" people should not be able to tell people they're belief is beyond reasonable thought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV
Although personally I've always wondered about the intelligence or sensibility of someone who can't differentiate between a guy that historical evidence suggests did actually exist
Actually, as noted elsewhere (I think it's in the atheist kid vs prayer thread) there's very little historical evidence for Jesus, at least beyond there being someone who it was based on (which really isn't proof of his existence).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV
the real question being did he have super powers or was he just a regular dude who people followed for his wisdom (like Gandhi), vs completely fictional beings meant to amuse little children
No one, let alone me, is saying it's "completely" fictional. This is putting words in my mouth.
Sure it does. You don't need perfect camouflage. Polar bears aren't even pure white, they're kinda yellow.
Their fur is technically transparent. Young bears do indeed appear pure white, though they pick up the tanning effect with age. One of many species whose hair color changes over time.
Quote:
Obviously, you didn't pay any attention, because if you think this is a valid point, then you don't understand what evolution says at all.
Seriously? I wasn't trying to make a "point" with that comment. Just throwing it out there as an illustration of the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7
This is classic "moving the goalpost". You asked how it was possible. The answer was easy to find, so I called you out on it.
Of course it "apparently" happened because, as any real scientist would be aware of, nothing is certain in evolutionary biology. To expect certainty is to be, sorry to be blunt, quite dumb.
The answer is obviously not "easy to find" as it was not contained in the link you posted, nor in any other resource I have found. Search all day if you like, I guarantee that every single explanation of polar bear evolution will reference an assumed transition from brown to white. At no point has anything other than the standard "well, they must have just transitioned due to natural selection" been advanced -- and in this case, natural selection is not a sufficient explanation.
Quote:
And sorry about the "condescending" attitude, but you need to understand that it's not an attack on you, but rather on a certain action you make. The only thing that is making it condescending to you is your ego.
No, you really are being condescending by calling me "quite dumb" and assuming that I didn't put Google to use on this subject before asking the question. Again, I have studied all of this stuff before and don't need to be lectured on simple evolutionary theory. The point is that polar bears, like certain other species, present a challenge to the generic model of natural selection which suggests a more complex solution than what is being assumed in resources like the one you linked.
The model that is assumed by the author of the article you linked seems to assume that cladogenesis (defined in the article above) must necessarily have led to a state of rapid selection that somehow produced white bears. What I'm asking about is the mechanism at play here, given that the ecological niche of whiteness couldn't have been achieved by selection in less than a large number of generations... in which case the intermediate stages wouldn't have presented a significant advantage.
Selection for thickness that eventually led to whiteness might make some sense, if there is a connection between thickness and color. I don't know if that's true or not.
I'm not a freakin' idiot. I studied biology at the university level, read Gould, and have a perfectly fine grasp of how natural selection works. What I am asking is how a species can possibly have an "evolutionary advantage" against a white background, unless it is in fact a very light color to begin with. Being less-dark isn't much of a survival aid.
Pfft, some animals change the color of their fur every winter:
(the thinker in the group)
