Sen. Claire McCaskill’s gift of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) is a gift that simply keeps on giving. Previously Akin alienated the GOP leadership and most of the known world with comments that, in cases of legitimate rape, women often do not get pregnant because “the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.” He also claimed that doctor routinely performed abortions on women who are not pregnant. Now, at a Tea Party meeting in Jefferson City, Missouri, Akin has said that that there is no science behind evolution. Akin sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Akin’s remarks not only leave doubt about his knowledge — or ability to understand – science but also what he considers “the thing” that he is supposed to do in Washington:
I don’t see it as even a matter of science because I don’t know that you can prove one or the other. That’s one of those things. We can talk about theology and all of those other things but I’m basically concerned about, you’ve got a choice between Claire McCaskill and myself. My job is to make the thing there. If we want to do theoretical stuff, we can do that, but I think I better stay on topic.
Of course, such comments could be used by some to disprove any evidence that we have evolved intellectually. Frankly, whenever I hear Akin speak recently I too begin to doubt evolution in the human species.
Notably, Akin sits on the committee with Rep. Paul Broun, the chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Broun made headlines this month with the following statement: at the 2012 Sportsman’s Banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia on September 27th, he said this:
God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.
As many of you know, I have shown equal disregard for both of the main parties that hold a monopoly on power in the United States. Indeed, the low quality politicians that we see in both parties is the very danger of all monopolies — once protected from competition, the quality of a product declines. The political monopoly in this country is the ultimate example of that phenomenon. What we need is a Sherman Act for politics, starting with the eradication of the electoral college and the establishment of a new rule on general elections.
As for Republicans, I have many friends from that party who are intellectual and honest. These characters are destroying the credibility of their party which often appears anti-intellectual and anti-science.
Gene H. 1, October 18, 2012 at 10:45 am
Ooo. Mystically conscious molecules capable of forming the requisite intent to cooperate.
How very exciting.
George Lucas is on line one.
===================================
Molecular cooperation is a term of art chemists use in their branch of science, evolutionary chemistry, i.e. abiotic evolution.
It is utterly distinct from cooperating microbes or cooperating multi-cellular biological entities, and even more distinct from what mature adults do as studied in human social evolution.
That is why I caution about catching the Akinoid infection by muddled conflation of things that are not the same.
There is abiotic evolution, microbial evolution, biological evolution, and human social evolution.
Those don’t work in the same way at all.
So, the unique processes in each of those evolutionary realms throws a lot of Akinoid people off track.
Especially when they think “one size fits all”, i.e. that one and only one grandiose process is prevalent in each of those four types of evolution.
For example, those Akinoid kinds of mistakes gave us Social Darwinism and Eugenics.
—————————————————
For example, abiotic evolution precedes microbial evolution because before there can be organic anything, carbon atoms must first exist.
The hot universe of energy became a big bang universe expanding out and cooling until sub-atomic entities and atoms formed:
(Wikipedia, Big Bang, emphasis added). Carbon was not formed, i.e. it did not evolve, until after stars evolved, so entire careers are spent just studying and researching how stars formed, then how carbon formed within them.
It is an essential requirement of abiotic evolution to explain how carbon forms, because organic molecules are those based on carbon.
Thus abiotic evolution / cosmology deals, among other things, with the difficult task of research concerning the formation of carbon:
(The Origin of Carbon, emphasis added). An incredible amount of difficult evolutionary science is required well before considering any organic evolution, because without carbon there are no organic compounds that can evolve.
The science of stellar evolution involves chemistry and physics, not organics, genetics, nor any type of biological evolution.
There is no longer any doubt about Akin; G-d told me only last week that Akin was wrong. And he is ungodly.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Burt Bacharach
http://youtu.be/HsbkPDeC3tI
Which has just as much to do with anything as anything else that’s been said recently.
“The book of Revelations does say that during the final days that one will be attacked for one’s religious beliefs.”
The 1st Amendment guarantees you can practice the religion of your choice although there are some limitations on that practice such as you cannot perform human sacrifices, etc. No one is saying you cannot believe what you choose or in general practice it how you like. However, attacking irrationality and scientific ignorance is fair game as is criticism of your chosen beliefs under the Free Speech clause of that very same 1st Amendment that protects your right to Free Exercise. Also, the Establishment Clause prohibits you from using the mechanisms of government to force your beliefs on others. Ours is a specifically secular form of government and any law or regulation relating to religion must have a valid secular purpose, not act primarily to advance or prohibit any one religion and must not promote excessive entanglement. For example, murder is against the 10 Commandments, but there is a valid secular purpose for making it illegal (deterrence, punishment so to remove the temptation of self-help on the part of survivors and/or family, the general promotion of justice as required by the Constitution), making murder illegal doesn’t advance or promote any one religion (many religious traditions hold murder as a sin or evil or unethical generally unacceptable act) and it does not promote excessive entanglement.
The problem with Akin is he wants to impose his religion upon others using the mechanisms of law. That is prime facie unconstitutional. Not only does this make him not fit for office, his unscientific views make him unsuitable to be on any committee dealing with science simply as a matter of logic but also to prevent him from again making policy decisions and influencing law based on his religion instead of doing the job he’s supposed to be doing.
Enjoy.
I am still waiting to see (in this country in which on has a right to religious freedom, and ideas) whats the holly-buloo? I agree with almost all accounts shared by Senator Akins. The book of Revelations does say that during the final days that one will be attacked for one’s religious beliefs.
God made the earth, and all the contents therein. He rested on the 7th day. The scientists have always been in a competition with God, always trying to debunk his authority, and it is in-fact these same fools who are unable to decipher the collective signs & wonders prophesied so long ago, that are daily manifested, ARE UNABLE TO SEE THE THORNS FROM THE WHEAT!
Why are the bees dying? (wordwide)? Why can’t they find their way home? Why are the fish (of all kind) (world-wide) beaching themselves in droves? Why are the birds falling from the sky? (world-wide)? Why THE INCREASED aLIEN SIGHTINGS? IS THE EARTH ACTUALLY CRYING? ARE WE IN THE BIRTH-PAINS?
Why is there such lawlessness within the American Judicial system? By day the Supreme Court members are angels in Black robes, parading in strident if not arrogant dances announcing their cerebral capacities (they have forgotten that it was not brian cells but political maneuverings which got them placed)…people like Scalia wants to confound & confuse, he wants you to believe he is intelligent. I find him to be a stupid bore!
Remember all institutions in America are suffering from immorality and ineptness, but I believe that is because they have been contacted by members of the judiciary to become involve in corruption and they have gone along to get along…to save jobs etc.
This is the one institution that is busy at work corrupting and denigrating the Constitution and the American people: IT IS OPPOSITE OF ROBIN-HOOD…THE MAFIO-HOOD! Social disintegration is most pronounced and profound here! There is a break down of Law an Order: This is manifested via the cruelties and inhumanities greeted us nightly via the news…but you see, the originator has been in the Courts: There is no-longer a civilized society, (anarchy is slowing making its way here): Have you seen the millions of coffins and CONCENTRATION CAMPS ALL WITH ELECTROFIED BARBED WIRES AND HIGH COMMAND POSTS IN ALL 50 STATES? HAVE YOU SEEN THE TRAINS AND TRAIN-TRACKS WAITING? THE GAS CHAMBERS THINK THOSE OF GERMANY WERE THE LAST? YOUR FREE SOCIETY IS PLANNING TO DEBUNK YOUR MYTH WHILE MANY SLEEP: And thats why the interested is particularly pointed here?
Right now on Plum island “research” is ongoing as human beings are growing wings and fangs… and then disposed of! Think Hitler was bad? YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND FREEDOM LOVING GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWING THE SCIENTIST TO “CHALLENGE” GOD!
Animals are being sacrificed in horrific ways as well! ALL IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE, AND THEIR RACE TO CHALLENGE GOD! Do not get me wrong, I do believe that we have gained tremendously from scientific advances, and this has aided us, and prevented great suffering: It is in-fact, the race to dispel God’s creation. The book of Daniel tells us that:
“�to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4).
http://powerpointparadise.com/endworld/signs/knowledge.htm
Clearly, clearly the book of Genesis tells us how God created the earth. No man-made theory can ever alter the{f]acts! Just as no MAN can ever, ever, ever, represent Jesus and the father on earth!
NEVER! AND ALL SUCH REPRESENATATIVES ARE HERETICS! ARE ARE SEEN FOR THE PAGAN ROOTS FROM WHENCE THEY COMETH!
So did I stray from the topic? No, I just naturally extended the logic! Todays scientist and wordly thinking (in league with Satan) seek to chastise those with morals and great ethical leanings as to right, and wrong: Indeed these people are very confuse as everythig is “relevant” and their are no moral absolutes!
Many of us (and the major themes of Senator Akins’s) agree in the rights and wrongs that can never ever be changed, and that will always stand the test of time!
Ooo. Mystically conscious molecules capable of forming the requisite intent to cooperate.
How very exciting.
George Lucas is on line one.
There is abiotic evolution, microbial evolution, biological evolution, and human social evolution.
Those don’t work in the same way at all.
So, the unique processes in each of those evolutionary realms throws a lot of Akinoid people off track.
Especially when they think “one size fits all”, i.e. that one and only one grandiose process is prevalent in each of those four types of evolution.
For example, those Akinoid kinds of mistakes gave us Social Darwinism and Eugenics.
—————————————————
From the Journal Nature:
(Nature, 10/17/12). Abiotic evolution is very different from microbial, biological, and human social evolution types.
Each has its own required specialization.
A jack of all evolution who believes in “allie samie” is an incompetent.
How molecules could cooperate is distinct from microbial symbiosis a.k.a. microbial cooperation, and different from human-microbe symbiosis as well.
For example, molecules do not have genes or DNA, and neither do atoms that molecules are composed of.
“It’s a non-sequitur.”
Then I didn’t miss the point, you didn’t make the point you intended (or so you claim). Trying to cover the deficiencies of your earlier argument by pointing out humans impact the environment is simply more specious reasoning. All fauna impact the environment. Don’t believe that? I’ve got two words for you: beaver dam. The interaction between fauna and the environment (and flora for that matter) is reciprocal. That some of that impact is directed and some is not is immaterial. Your non-sequitur is truly that.
“Now, Nietzsche, have you read him for god’s sake? The Nazi’s stole from him, they cherry-picked, they hi-jacked. The guy was an anti-statist, he considered the state a monster, a cold monster, and a liar, a cold liar. He used the term Ubermensch (umlaut over the U) about the individual, but never gave any real indication, advocation, of Eugenics or the totalitarian state. It was triumph of the will, another term stolen, though Riefenstahl is magnificent.”
The Nazis cherry picked Nietzsche? No shit? Well I guess that means he did influence the ideals that they later took to combine with the ideals eugenics cherry picks from Darwin to rationalize their extermination of the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped.
“Really, you had just as well blame Einstein for moral relativism.”
I said no such thing. I said your use of Einstein’s position on quantum mechanics as an illustration was a non-sequitur. One just as bad as the one you just made now. But we’ll get back to that in a bit.
“However, Nietzsche is an easy blame for the conservative and religious cherry-pickers. It’s a real big argument for the for them, given his “god is dead”, and I paraphrase them “see, it led to the Nazis, just like Darwin”.”
You can’t have it both ways. Either Nietzsche led to the Nazis or he didn’t. Also, it is salient to point out that not all ideas are created equal. Evolution and natural selection are good ideas because over the years much data has proven them to be truthful observations about the way nature works. Nietzsche on the other hand was a bad idea to start with. So to complete you incomplete thought: Smart (or evil or crazy) people can adopt bad ideas and do terrible things with them but they can also adopt good ideas and distort them to their ends as well.
“Now, let’s go to the Fascists. Mussolini was a major luminary in the Italian Communist movement (prior to Lenin the terms Socialist or Communist were more geographical than ideological). Let me repeat that, major. The Italian Communist movement had a schism over WWI, split over nationalism and internationalism (the former wanting to be in the war). From that schism rose Fascism, a bundling of government, union, and corporation (and obviously the people). It rose from disaffected Socialists/Communists (no not Marxist-Leninists). That was the ideology of Mussolini and Franco, and overall it was cogent at the start. Nazism was derivative if you want to call it Fascism, but it was unique. Nazism may have been Fascism, but Fascism wasn’t Naziism. Nazism was the extreme, wasn’t cogent, and best described as “extremes from the middle”. Look at what the Nazis stood for, from religion to Eugenics.”
First, what Nazism primarily drew from Italian Fascism was their economic model. It was not a derivative of Italian Fascism. You are partially correct. Secondly, your rambling narrative on fascism is a red herring. I wasn’t talking about Italian Fascism proper. I was talking about Nazi fascism which really came into bloom after the Night of the Long Knives pushed the true socialist elements in the Nazi party out as they posed a threat and a hindrance to the more radical right within the party. The position of fascism on the political spectrum is a contentious question in part because it is a syncretic ideology. This does not detract that fascism as practiced by the Nazis was at the far right wing of the spectrum as were all of their beliefs and practices.
“The Fascists no more embraced industrial genocide than the Eugenics or the Colonial Powers, but the Nazis did.”
Really. Then I guess the approximately 7,500 Jews killed in Italy (approximately 17% of Italy’s pre-war Jewish population of around 44,500) were imagining things.
“I didn’t use the term “the New Soviet Man” because Marxist-Leninism meant nothing before 1917, nothing. The term soviet did not exist in the time period I was addressing. The term was New Communist Man, and extended beyond class, the morons and feeble couldn’t make the cut either.”
The terms are equivalent. You say Pepsi, I say Coke, both are colas. However as a point of ideology, when the Communists killed “the morons and the feeble” it was because of exceptionally bad men being in charge like Stalin and Pol Pot.
“Oh, and Pol Pot or Mao are real non-sequiturs.”
As practioners of communism, no they were not. Your lack of understanding notwithstanding.
“’Ultimately you’ve made the error of the fallacy of the excluded middle, a form of false choice based on your begging the question (also a fallacy) that those to blame for eugenics were the intellectuals and not the men building the camps and firing the ovens thus compounding your false dilemma with a false ethical dichotomy.’
Now the whole problem with this argument is I was talking about the Eugenics Movement in the UK and the US that predates even the Beer Hall Putsch. Arguing by history isn’t any one of those fallacies so you need to go back and either learn history or fallacies, or better yet both. Or simply understand that 1912 isn’t 1933.”
Cherry pick much? Because that’s how you were arguing history. The original statement stands. I was being kind earlier and not pointing out every single fallacy you made. But now that you point that one out, I feel obliged to note it too.
“As for “anti-evolutionary, anti-intellectual and pro-religion”, leaping to conclusions can cause pain. I’m an atheist but not anti-intellectual except the wild-ass dumb statements made by people preening as intellectuals.”
That’s funny coming from someone talking out of her ass about biology and history.
“As for pro-religion, nope, I just can’t make pure crap up about them either.”
No one is making up anything about Akin or his ilk. They’re on record for their anti-intellectual/anti-science positions. So why are you defending them if you are not pro-religion?
“Something about intellectual integrity and the resultant necessary perspective. Anti-evolutionary? Just your version. I consider the mainstream version a fact.”
Mainstream. Really. Then how come you said, “Species are species, mechanisms may differ.”? The mainstream view about The Species Problem was as I stated and even a cursory investigation proves this. As to the mechanisms of speciation may “differ”? That’s simply a statement revealing your ignorance about how speaciation works. The mechanisms are the mechanisms and they may or may not apply and the effects and possible variants differ by orders of magnitude according to scale of complexity of both the organism and its environment, but the mechanisms are constant.
“But there is also something else about highly educated people. They can also spot illogical fallacious argument built on weak evidence from a mile away. Logical fallacies are more than just errors in thinking. “, and this is a moment of being hoisted by your own petard done solely by your self.
And this is the moment your comments are revealed as little more than bluster to cover your incompetence in the subject matters of biology, math and history and your total lack of cogent logic free from fallacious and factual error.
“If this was too complex for you, I wouldn’t recommend argumentum verbosum as a fall back, I’d recommend reading. Because you don’t know crap about the early 20th Century and it’s Movements.”
Right back at you, windbag.
“Now, off this but related in only how someone can be so wrong: Einstein’s “doesn’t roll dice” was a response to quantum mechanics. Man was he wrong.”
Non-sequitur? Really? I even set it up so someone might understand it was an illustration, and only that, of how a highly intelligent man can be so wrong about something by way of prejudice. You missed it?”
No, I simply know a non-seqitur when I see one. Einstein being wrong about QM is not the ethical equivalent of the abused idea of eugenics as put into practice. Those currying the idea of eugenics academically took a good idea to a bad conclusion later used by evil men as a rationale for evil acts. Einstein not acknowledging the implications of his own work simply led to the Copenhagen (and various other) interpretations of quantum mechanics – more good ideas. And like biology and history, I’m betting my knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics is greater than yours as well if you want to jump down that rabbit hole.
“You really need to put that book of fallacies down. Put it down and back away.”
You really need to pick up a book. Any book. Read it too. Better yet, understand it, Ms. Factually Wrong and Riddled With Logical Fallacies and Factual Errors.
“BTW, my comment you labeled argumentum verbosum was much shorter than yours, and less disjointed.”
And unlike mine, completely full of fallacies and factual errors. As to disjointed? Well, your obvious problems with reading comprehension are not my burden to bear.
Also, pointing out your ignorance in biology and math (and I’m going to add history and logic to that list) isn’t mean.
It’s a statement of fact.
Ariel,
“Consciousness really screws with evolution.”
Why would you say that? It might add a few things to be selected for or against, and remove a few others, but so does any adaptation. Variation and selection still happen.
To your enumerated points:
1. Which was entirely my point. You’re mistaken in who’s advocating what here.
2. Seriously, Dredd’s the one who you should be addressing this too, and he absolutely is full of it.
It IS worth noting that people have been using evolutionary strategy to optimize designs for 60 some odd years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation.
3. Did I mention that I just got through reading a book by an evolutionary biologist who was in fact studying human society in his role as an evolutionary biologist? It’s chocked full of him going to conferences where he meets other people (including evolutionary biologists) who study human society as evolutionary biologists.
You’ll have to forgive me if I assume the guy (his Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson ) knows what he does and doesn’t study as part of his research better then you do.
One of the first presents I bought for my husband was a book of Escher drawings and and sketches. He really liked them. I wonder if we still have the book.
Slarts be careful there! You almost broke into a mathematical discussion!! 🙂
Bron,
No, but I will say she’s ignorant of actual science. You? You are a troll. An unpaid one, but a troll nonetheless.
**********************
Malisha,
Here you go . . .
http://www.winextra.com/artgeeks/designgeeks/wooden-m-c-escher-floor-tiles-are-awesome/
Ariel:
that was well done.
Gene will now say you are a troll, are full of it and that he “won” because of your use of the various fallacies.
Your posts are a breath of fresh air.
Gene H, you say “Speaking of Escher tiling of the plane, I recently saw a photo of where someone had custom wood tiles made of Escher’s lizards. It was taken part way through installation in a hallway. It was beautiful. I’d love to see some pics then the floor is finished (the tiles looked to be still raw wood).”
OMG where is that picture, is it online? I can’t imagine how beautiful that must be, I would LOVE to be able to find it! OMG — now I know what to wish I could afford to give my kid for his next birthday!! 😈
“Apparently nobody actually teaches biology or math in this country any more.”
Now that was just nasty. And I was just using shorthand regarding “microbial evolution” as one form of evolution versus “multicellular evolution” being another, and the implied substantial difference. Context.
Made my peace earlier.
Hi, Gene H.,
Actually, my phrase “consciousness really screws with evolution” is only directed at us and about us. It has nothing to do with bacterial or viral responses to our consciousness. Or crops, insects, or my damn dogs. It’s a non-sequitur., you missed the point.
We do not respond to a need to fit an environmental niche, by mutations over time, we change the niche instead. We’ve been doing it at least since agriculture, but it may go back further depending on the strategies we used to modify our environment prior. I don’t fit the environment, it fits me. That screws with evolution. Hate to tell you, I never wrote or even implied that consciousness is supernatural. I’m a strong advocate of a bullet not only ends brain but mind. You really shouldn’t pull these things from other than my exact words, otherwise you’re pulling them from an area infested with e. coli.
As an aside, are there human mutations, positive ones? Sure, I can think of one in Italy: at least two villages have very few people with any heart disease, a real anomaly. Geneticists (forensic?) were able to trace the gene to a man circa 14th-15th Century (doing this from memory, seem to remember it was tied to one of the plague waves). They don’t get arterial plaque because of his mutation. Really nice mutation. Didn’t say evolution ended with consciousness, but that consciousness screws with it.
Now, Eugenics. The movement in the US started around the time Heydrich was two,although its antecedents are 19th century, and was in full blossom during Ellis Island making Heydrich around 8 maybe. It’s why I directed readers to Gould’s (Evolutionist, atheist, maybe agnostic, and a good writer) “The Mismeasure of Man”. The Eugenics movement in the US and the UK wasn’t comprised of misguided academics (such a transparently dismissive and misdirective phrase), it was comprised of people that effected social change and immigration policies, it was a movement that had force. We were still following Eugenics to about 1972 with the forced sterilization of Indian (NA) women.
Now this: “You also discount the fact that both Eugenics and Nietzsche directly influenced the Third Reich.” With the first, no I don’t, the Eugenics movement was much earlier, obviously before the Beer Hall Putsch of ’21 when Hitler had not clearly formulated his ideology, and was mostly, even strongly, a Progressive movement which is certainly different, if only by group, than the Nazis. That the Nazi’s drew from the much earlier Eugenics movement has some evidence, especially the US Eugenics movement. And that’s not a case of ergo hoc, prompter hoc.
Now, Nietzsche, have you read him for god’s sake? The Nazi’s stole from him, they cherry-picked, they hi-jacked. The guy was an anti-statist, he considered the state a monster, a cold monster, and a liar, a cold liar. He used the term Ubermensch (umlaut over the U) about the individual, but never gave any real indication, advocation, of Eugenics or the totalitarian state. It was triumph of the will, another term stolen, though Riefenstahl is magnificent. Really, you had just as well blame Einstein for moral relativism. However, Nietzsche is an easy blame for the conservative and religious cherry-pickers. It’s a real big argument for the for them, given his “god is dead”, and I paraphrase them “see, it led to the Nazis, just like Darwin”.
Now, let’s go to the Fascists. Mussolini was a major luminary in the Italian Communist movement (prior to Lenin the terms Socialist or Communist were more geographical than ideological). Let me repeat that, major. The Italian Communist movement had a schism over WWI, split over nationalism and internationalism (the former wanting to be in the war). From that schism rose Fascism, a bundling of government, union, and corporation (and obviously the people). It rose from disaffected Socialists/Communists (no not Marxist-Leninists). That was the ideology of Mussolini and Franco, and overall it was cogent at the start. Nazism was derivative if you want to call it Fascism, but it was unique. Nazism may have been Fascism, but Fascism wasn’t Naziism. Nazism was the extreme, wasn’t cogent, and best described as “extremes from the middle”. Look at what the Nazis stood for, from religion to Eugenics. The Fascists no more embraced industrial genocide than the Eugenics or the Colonial Powers, but the Nazis did.
I didn’t use the term “the New Soviet Man” because Marxist-Leninism meant nothing before 1917, nothing. The term soviet did not exist in the time period I was addressing. The term was New Communist Man, and extended beyond class, the morons and feeble couldn’t make the cut either. Oh, and Pol Pot or Mao are real non-sequiturs.
“Ultimately you’ve made the error of the fallacy of the excluded middle, a form of false choice based on your begging the question (also a fallacy) that those to blame for eugenics were the intellectuals and not the men building the camps and firing the ovens thus compounding your false dilemma with a false ethical dichotomy.” Now the whole problem with this argument is I was talking about the Eugenics Movement in the UK and the US that predates even the Beer Hall Putsch. Arguing by history isn’t any one of those fallacies so you need to go back and either learn history or fallacies, or better yet both. Or simply understand that 1912 isn’t 1933.
As for “anti-evolutionary, anti-intellectual and pro-religion”, leaping to conclusions can cause pain. I’m an atheist but not anti-intellectual except the wild-ass dumb statements made by people preening as intellectuals. As for pro-religion, nope, I just can’t make pure crap up about them either. Something about intellectual integrity and the resultant necessary perspective. Anti-evolutionary? Just your version. I consider the mainstream version a fact.
“But there is also something else about highly educated people. They can also spot illogical fallacious argument built on weak evidence from a mile away. Logical fallacies are more than just errors in thinking. “, and this is a moment of being hoisted by your own petard done solely by your self.
If this was too complex for you, I wouldn’t recommend argumentum verbosum as a fall back, I’d recommend reading. Because you don’t know crap about the early 20th Century and it’s Movements.
“Now, off this but related in only how someone can be so wrong: Einstein’s “doesn’t roll dice” was a response to quantum mechanics. Man was he wrong.” Non-sequitur? Really? I even set it up so someone might understand it was an illustration, and only that, of how a highly intelligent man can be so wrong about something by way of prejudice. You missed it?
You really need to put that book of fallacies down. Put it down and back away.
BTW, my comment you labeled argumentum verbosum was much shorter than yours, and less disjointed. There is an irony there. The other irony is of course how long this one is but that’s on me (double entendre to help you along).
“Species are species, mechanisms may differ.”
Apparently nobody actually teaches biology or math in this country any more.
Speciation is a process that happens in any life form, but the key to understanding the differenced between microbial life and multicellular life is complexity. Although the mechanisms of speciation remain the same (cladogenesis [extra-lineal or a split lineage] and anagenesis [intra-lineal] as impacted by generic drift and the physical geographic effects of allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation), the effects and possible variants differ by orders of magnitude according to scale of complexity of both the organism and its environment. There is also the possibility of speciation by human intervention (husbandry) or through genetic transposition. These processes have been defined in the years since Darwin by studying what is called The Species Problem. In Darwin’s day, what mechanisms caused speciation was the question. Subsequent study revealed those afore described mechanisms and they do not “differ”. Some may apply due to environmental constraints and some may not, but the mechanisms remain the same. Today studying The Species Problem is an entirely different issue and one Gould was heavily involved in. Today’s Species Problem is more philosophical (mostly nominalists and realists – Gould’s camp) and semantic (mostly monists and pluarists) and concerned with how we define discrete species.
Species are not species – that is an open argument – but the mechanisms of speciation remain the same as they have been studied and understood since Darwin first proposed natural selection. And systemic complexity of both organism and environment are directly reflected in biodiversity.
Go ahead and look up The Species Problem.
Ariel,
Personally, I don’t think that “law” is a good term to use for any scientific theory as it generally has a connotation of absolute truth—something that just doesn’t happen when describing the universe with mathematics. Theories are hypotheses that are incredibly unlikely to be falsified in the regiems where they are valid, which, scientifically speaking, is the best that you can do. Any scientific hypothesis is subject to empirical falsification—find an apple that can be made to rise repeatedly and Newton’s “Law” of gravity goes down or a single true chimera and it’s curtains for the Theory of Evolution…
Dredd,
Law and Theory aren’t some linear string where you can downgrade Law into Theory. A Law in science is what is but not why it is; a Theory has to have why but also usually includes is (is usually comes before why). Think of Newton and Einstein. (yeah I hedged with usually because it’s likely that somewhere out there why was the same moment as is).
As an aside, one of the funniest moments regarding Evolution I have ever heard was on Medved’s show. He’s an ID proponent and had a Creationist/ID’er with a curator of a Natural History Museum (biologist, not an evolutionary biologist). I forget the exact things Medved and the C/ID’er said, but it had something to do with no observational positive mutations. The curator said one word “nylonase” and went silent. Both went “what” and then he explained: nylon is completely artificial, there is no polymer in nature close to nylon, yet this bacterium through a mutation of an enzyme could digest, poorly, nylon; furthermore, given the rapid rate of generations of bacteria, the ability improved (the enzyme became more effective). Dead silence and change of subject. My sides split. More on this: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
And no microbial and multicellular are not separate. It is all one. Species are species, mechanisms may differ.