|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: Reason on "Expelled" |
 |
|
Quoting a review titled "Flunk this Movie!", at:
http://reason.com/news/show/126800.html
we read:
"This is not a religious argument," Discovery Institute President
Bruce Chapman asserts in the new anti-evolution propaganda movie,
_Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed_. Yet the film is free of
scientific content: It gives no scientific evidence against biological
evolution and none for "intelligent design." Instead, host Ben Stein
spends most of the movie asking various proponents of evolutionary
theory for their religious views.
Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is that
reason doesn't count." -- Isaac Asimov |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
*Hemidactylus*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:06 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
On Jun 7, 10:05 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
| Quote: |
Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 9:01 pm, "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu
wrote:
Quoting a review titled "Flunk this Movie!", at:
http://reason.com/news/show/126800.html
we read:
"This is not a religious argument," Discovery Institute President
Bruce Chapman asserts in the new anti-evolution propaganda movie,
_Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed_. Yet the film is free of
scientific content: It gives no scientific evidence against biological
evolution and none for "intelligent design." Instead, host Ben Stein
spends most of the movie asking various proponents of evolutionary
theory for their religious views.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu !http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is that
reason doesn't count." -- Isaac Asimov
Bailey ends the article with:
At one point in the film, the science studies gadfly Steve Fuller
archly poses the question: Which comes first, worldview or evidence?
Fuller aims his question at the proponents of evolutionary biology. As
this dreary film itself makes it painfully clear, the question is far
more relevant to the supporters of intelligent design."
Far more relevant because, though "Expelled" painstakingly pretends
othewise, evolution is accepted by the entire range of "worldviews",
from the evangelical Christian Francis Collins to atheists Dawkins and
Myers. On the political scale, it accepted by staunch conservatives
like Derbyshire and Arnhart to the far left, and everything in
between.
In contrast, anti-evolution activists are almost all from an extreme
authoritarian worldview with a Creator who can be outsmarted by His
Creation. Where far right meets far left, if you will.
Note that I am not advocting an argument from authority, but only that
when an evidence-based scientifc conclusion is (1) accepted across all
worldviews, and (2) denied only by specific ones with a vested
interest in it being wrong, it behooves one to look at the evidence in
context, and not take any arguments against without looking closely at
counter arguments. Counter arguments that are, tellingly, effectively
censored by the phony "critical analysis" scam.
This is exactly the point I was making in my Feyerabend post. Worldview
advocates think that thought defines the world. Hence one constructs the
reality one has to deal with. Science is based on the exactly opposite
view - that the world is something we have to deal with, not construct.
Overdichotimizationalism. |
Science deals with construcions of the world, but ones which can be
tested against facts. The scientific process involves a degree of
conceptualization. You cannot deny this. The constructions which win
out are the ones corresponding best to reality. Yet even these
construction are probably flawed, so must either be modified or
discarded as new constructions are tested or new evidence accumulates.
But overarching worldviews as constructions in themselves are
problematic. Science, ideally, should eschew overarching worldviews.
But science still involves a degree of creative construction and
destruction as fragments of reality are pieced together to form a more
coherent whole that has been shown to correspond to reality.
Theoretical conceptualization involves this creative/destructive
process.
Darwin demolished the argument from design construction, but utilized
the Malthusian doctrine as one of the fragmentary edifices in his
creative reconstruction of biological thought.
One of Darwin's pet constructions, that of pangenesis, was demolished
by genetics, based on the work of a lowly monk named Mendel.
His major construction, natural selection, has been shown to not apply
across the board as drift and neutral alleles have their important
places within modern evolutionary theory.
Science is dynamic where religious dogma is static. Religious
constructions usually cannot be tested against reality and must be
accepted upon faith. Those aspects of religious dogma that can
potentially impinge upon reality can be shown to be correct or
mistaken. Archaeology seems to be overturning much dogma surrounding
the so-called United Monarchy of David and Solomon, a least as Israel
Finkelstein and Neil Silberman argue in their books. This is an
example where the historical aspects of a religious text can be
challenged by science. But it still involves a deal of construction.
And there are competing worldviews at play between traditionalists who
accept the Bible on faith and minimalists who are skeptic of it in its
entirety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
Frank J <fnci@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 6, 9:01 pm, "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu
wrote:
Quoting a review titled "Flunk this Movie!", at:
http://reason.com/news/show/126800.html
we read:
"This is not a religious argument," Discovery Institute President
Bruce Chapman asserts in the new anti-evolution propaganda movie,
_Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed_. Yet the film is free of
scientific content: It gives no scientific evidence against biological
evolution and none for "intelligent design." Instead, host Ben Stein
spends most of the movie asking various proponents of evolutionary
theory for their religious views.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu !http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is that
reason doesn't count." -- Isaac Asimov
Bailey ends the article with:
At one point in the film, the science studies gadfly Steve Fuller
archly poses the question: Which comes first, worldview or evidence?
Fuller aims his question at the proponents of evolutionary biology. As
this dreary film itself makes it painfully clear, the question is far
more relevant to the supporters of intelligent design."
Far more relevant because, though "Expelled" painstakingly pretends
othewise, evolution is accepted by the entire range of "worldviews",
from the evangelical Christian Francis Collins to atheists Dawkins and
Myers. On the political scale, it accepted by staunch conservatives
like Derbyshire and Arnhart to the far left, and everything in
between.
In contrast, anti-evolution activists are almost all from an extreme
authoritarian worldview with a Creator who can be outsmarted by His
Creation. Where far right meets far left, if you will.
Note that I am not advocting an argument from authority, but only that
when an evidence-based scientifc conclusion is (1) accepted across all
worldviews, and (2) denied only by specific ones with a vested
interest in it being wrong, it behooves one to look at the evidence in
context, and not take any arguments against without looking closely at
counter arguments. Counter arguments that are, tellingly, effectively
censored by the phony "critical analysis" scam.
|
This is exactly the point I was making in my Feyerabend post. Worldview
advocates think that thought defines the world. Hence one constructs the
reality one has to deal with. Science is based on the exactly opposite
view - that the world is something we have to deal with, not construct.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 7, 10:05 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 9:01 pm, "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu
wrote:
Quoting a review titled "Flunk this Movie!", at:
http://reason.com/news/show/126800.html
we read:
"This is not a religious argument," Discovery Institute President
Bruce Chapman asserts in the new anti-evolution propaganda movie,
_Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed_. Yet the film is free of
scientific content: It gives no scientific evidence against biological
evolution and none for "intelligent design." Instead, host Ben Stein
spends most of the movie asking various proponents of evolutionary
theory for their religious views.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu !http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is that
reason doesn't count." -- Isaac Asimov
Bailey ends the article with:
At one point in the film, the science studies gadfly Steve Fuller
archly poses the question: Which comes first, worldview or evidence?
Fuller aims his question at the proponents of evolutionary biology. As
this dreary film itself makes it painfully clear, the question is far
more relevant to the supporters of intelligent design."
Far more relevant because, though "Expelled" painstakingly pretends
othewise, evolution is accepted by the entire range of "worldviews",
from the evangelical Christian Francis Collins to atheists Dawkins and
Myers. On the political scale, it accepted by staunch conservatives
like Derbyshire and Arnhart to the far left, and everything in
between.
In contrast, anti-evolution activists are almost all from an extreme
authoritarian worldview with a Creator who can be outsmarted by His
Creation. Where far right meets far left, if you will.
Note that I am not advocting an argument from authority, but only that
when an evidence-based scientifc conclusion is (1) accepted across all
worldviews, and (2) denied only by specific ones with a vested
interest in it being wrong, it behooves one to look at the evidence in
context, and not take any arguments against without looking closely at
counter arguments. Counter arguments that are, tellingly, effectively
censored by the phony "critical analysis" scam.
This is exactly the point I was making in my Feyerabend post. Worldview
advocates think that thought defines the world. Hence one constructs the
reality one has to deal with. Science is based on the exactly opposite
view - that the world is something we have to deal with, not construct.
Overdichotimizationalism.
Science deals with construcions of the world, but ones which can be
tested against facts. The scientific process involves a degree of
conceptualization. You cannot deny this. The constructions which win
out are the ones corresponding best to reality. Yet even these
construction are probably flawed, so must either be modified or
discarded as new constructions are tested or new evidence accumulates.
But overarching worldviews as constructions in themselves are
problematic. Science, ideally, should eschew overarching worldviews.
But science still involves a degree of creative construction and
destruction as fragments of reality are pieced together to form a more
coherent whole that has been shown to correspond to reality.
Theoretical conceptualization involves this creative/destructive
process.
|
There has never been a worldview, in the history of the world. They are
a myth. What theories do is to present models and interpretations of
those models, and there is not a hint of this "constructing reality"
that people discuss. Ideas are recombined and manufactured, but those
ideas have theoretical roles just to the extent they *represent*
reality. There's a large difference between having ideas about the world
and the world itself.
| Quote: |
Darwin demolished the argument from design construction, but utilized
the Malthusian doctrine as one of the fragmentary edifices in his
creative reconstruction of biological thought.
One of Darwin's pet constructions, that of pangenesis, was demolished
by genetics, based on the work of a lowly monk named Mendel.
|
Actually, Darwin's ideas were demolished well before Mendel's work
became known. Nobody adopted it, but he did inspire a number of people
to do work on inheritance.
| Quote: |
His major construction, natural selection, has been shown to not apply
across the board as drift and neutral alleles have their important
places within modern evolutionary theory.
Science is dynamic where religious dogma is static. Religious
constructions usually cannot be tested against reality and must be
accepted upon faith. Those aspects of religious dogma that can
potentially impinge upon reality can be shown to be correct or
mistaken. Archaeology seems to be overturning much dogma surrounding
the so-called United Monarchy of David and Solomon, a least as Israel
Finkelstein and Neil Silberman argue in their books. This is an
example where the historical aspects of a religious text can be
challenged by science. But it still involves a deal of construction.
And there are competing worldviews at play between traditionalists who
accept the Bible on faith and minimalists who are skeptic of it in its
entirety.
|
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
*Hemidactylus*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
On Jun 8, 9:32 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
In message <Qd2dnVt44Oc05NHVnZ2dnUVZ_vzin...@gwi.net>, Cj <C...@mist.net
writes
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce8e17ef-b546-435b-9ecf-973513cc4cfc@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 7:36 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
In article
a982c0eb-657c-4897-9049-8eb5c9306...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
His major construction, natural selection, has been shown to not apply
across the board as drift and neutral alleles have their important
places within modern evolutionary theory.
Could you explain this statement, please?
What is meant by "drift" in this context? Mutation? Certainly
mutation is important because that is the source of new alleles,
whereas all natural selection can do is remove alleles. But that
does not weaken the concept of natural selection or reduce its
importance.
My goodness have you never heard of genetic drift, bottlenecks or
founder effects? Motoo KImura's neutral theory of molecular evolution?
Gee! It sounds like you are arguing that genetic drift, bottlenecks,
founder effects etc, are not subject to natural selection. Have you
forgotten that natural selection operates after genetic changes?
Cj
Genetic drift is not subject to natural selection.
Bottlenecks are only subject to natural selection in the sense that the
likelihood of a bottleneck can be modified by natural selection. (This
is a group selection effect - see the standard arguments for the
weakness of group selection.) Founder effects are a combination of drift
and natural selection (part of Mayr's concept of a founder effect is
that the change to the genetic background changes the selection
pressures on alleles), and are only subject to natural selection in the
sense that the magnitude of a founder effect can be modified by natural
selection. (Again this is a group selection effect.)
Natural selection operates on the results of mutation, genetic drift,
bottlenecks, found effects, etc. (and also on the results of previous
natural selection). This does not diminish the importance of the
contribution of other processes to evolution - remember that it's not a
one way street; genetic drift also operates on the results of natural
selection.
Thanks for your input on these topics. |
I could really ruffle some feathers in declaring my allegiance to a
non-Darwinian Owen/Goethe archetypal aspect of evolution replete with
*Bauplane* and the like, but like Darwin historicized the archetype as
common ancestor of a group, this can be seen as a matter of Gouldian
historical contingency setting the boundaries of future morphological
pattern and be considered a matter of stabilizing selection to a
limited range of outcomes.
For instance humans, like other vertebrates, pass though a phylotypic
period, often referred to as a pharyngula, and develop structures like
the notochord. Vertebrates, as a group, are constrained to pass
through this developmental hourglass and we see a similarity in
pattern across the group, more or less.
And heritable changes in developmental process are the stuff of
metazoan evolution. Selection only sifts through these changes.
Selection does not produce these changes. Developmental process
proposes, where selection disposes. So selection is limited in scope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ernest Major
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:32 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
In message <Qd2dnVt44Oc05NHVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@gwi.net>, Cj <Cj@mist.net>
writes
| Quote: |
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce8e17ef-b546-435b-9ecf-973513cc4cfc@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 7:36 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
In article
a982c0eb-657c-4897-9049-8eb5c9306...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
His major construction, natural selection, has been shown to not apply
across the board as drift and neutral alleles have their important
places within modern evolutionary theory.
Could you explain this statement, please?
What is meant by "drift" in this context? Mutation? Certainly
mutation is important because that is the source of new alleles,
whereas all natural selection can do is remove alleles. But that
does not weaken the concept of natural selection or reduce its
importance.
My goodness have you never heard of genetic drift, bottlenecks or
founder effects? Motoo KImura's neutral theory of molecular evolution?
Gee! It sounds like you are arguing that genetic drift, bottlenecks,
founder effects etc, are not subject to natural selection. Have you
forgotten that natural selection operates after genetic changes?
Cj
Genetic drift is not subject to natural selection. |
Bottlenecks are only subject to natural selection in the sense that the
likelihood of a bottleneck can be modified by natural selection. (This
is a group selection effect - see the standard arguments for the
weakness of group selection.) Founder effects are a combination of drift
and natural selection (part of Mayr's concept of a founder effect is
that the change to the genetic background changes the selection
pressures on alleles), and are only subject to natural selection in the
sense that the magnitude of a founder effect can be modified by natural
selection. (Again this is a group selection effect.)
Natural selection operates on the results of mutation, genetic drift,
bottlenecks, found effects, etc. (and also on the results of previous
natural selection). This does not diminish the importance of the
contribution of other processes to evolution - remember that it's not a
one way street; genetic drift also operates on the results of natural
selection.
--
alias Ernest Major |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert Carnegie
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
Max wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 9, 10:25�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
7f31a2cd-2e1d-44ba-a867-c9ae0fa5b...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes
snip
On Jun 9, 2:32�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Qd2dnVt44Oc05NHVnZ2dnUVZ_vzin...@gwi.net
Natural selection operates on the results of mutation, genetic drift,
bottlenecks, found effects, etc. (and also on the results of previous
natural selection). This does not diminish the importance of the
contribution of other processes to evolution - remember that it's not a
one way street; genetic drift also operates on the results of natural
selection.
Surely natural selection may /be/ the bottleneck - if the nature of
the bottleneck is failure to survive and reproduce. �Those that do
survive the bottleneck are selected to survive.
Natural selection is defined as differential reproductive success,
causally correlated to genotype, within a population. If this definition
is adopted then changes to population size are not the result of natural
selection.
I'm a little confused here. It seems natural selection would
frequently involve changes in population size. Take for example a
population of bacteria exposed to antibiotics or a population of
insects exposed to a pesticide. Or any population exposed to a
catastrophe where there would a differential in survivability
according to some genetic trait.
|
This is what I meant. Natural selection works by killing those
critters - or by not letting them breed - and killing a whole lot of
them at once is allowable in the game. The event of bottlenecking and
the significant selection event are the same set of deaths, the same
event really. If a one-off cause can produce selection - well, a
transmissible deadly disease can emxhatically select for individuals
with resistance to the disease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
*Hemidactylus*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
On Jun 9, 10:15Â pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Max wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:25�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
7f31a2cd-2e1d-44ba-a867-c9ae0fa5b...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes
snip
On Jun 9, 2:32�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Qd2dnVt44Oc05NHVnZ2dnUVZ_vzin...@gwi.net
Natural selection operates on the results of mutation, genetic drift,
bottlenecks, found effects, etc. (and also on the results of previous
natural selection). This does not diminish the importance of the
contribution of other processes to evolution - remember that it's not a
one way street; genetic drift also operates on the results of natural
selection.
Surely natural selection may /be/ the bottleneck - if the nature of
the bottleneck is failure to survive and reproduce. �Those that do
survive the bottleneck are selected to survive.
Natural selection is defined as differential reproductive success,
causally correlated to genotype, within a population. If this definition
is adopted then changes to population size are not the result of natural
selection.
I'm a little confused here. It seems natural selection would
frequently involve changes in population size. Take for example a
population of bacteria exposed to antibiotics or a population of
insects exposed to a pesticide. Or any population exposed to a
catastrophe where there would a differential in survivability
according to some genetic trait.
This is what I meant. Â Natural selection works by killing those
critters - or by not letting them breed - and killing a whole lot of
them at once is allowable in the game. Â The event of bottlenecking and
the significant selection event are the same set of deaths, the same
event really. Â If a one-off cause can produce selection - well, a
transmissible deadly disease can emxhatically select  for individuals
with resistance to the disease.
What does overhunting, bycatch or development of real estate that |
significantly reduces habitat do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert Carnegie
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: Re: Reason on "Expelled" |
|
|
On Jun 10, 6:26Â am, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 9, 10:15Â pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
Max wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:25�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message
7f31a2cd-2e1d-44ba-a867-c9ae0fa5b...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes
snip
On Jun 9, 2:32�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Qd2dnVt44Oc05NHVnZ2dnUVZ_vzin...@gwi.net
Natural selection operates on the results of mutation, genetic drift,
bottlenecks, found effects, etc. (and also on the results of previous
natural selection). This does not diminish the importance of the
contribution of other processes to evolution - remember that it's not a
one way street; genetic drift also operates on the results of natural
selection.
Surely natural selection may /be/ the bottleneck - if the nature of
the bottleneck is failure to survive and reproduce. �Those that do
survive the bottleneck are selected to survive.
Natural selection is defined as differential reproductive success,
causally correlated to genotype, within a population. If this definition
is adopted then changes to population size are not the result of natural
selection.
I'm a little confused here. It seems natural selection would
frequently involve changes in population size. Take for example a
population of bacteria exposed to antibiotics or a population of
insects exposed to a pesticide. Or any population exposed to a
catastrophe where there would a differential in survivability
according to some genetic trait.
This is what I meant. Â Natural selection works by killing those
critters - or by not letting them breed - and killing a whole lot of
them at once is allowable in the game. Â The event of bottlenecking and
the significant selection event are the same set of deaths, the same
event really. Â If a one-off cause can produce selection - well, a
transmissible deadly disease can emphatically select  for individuals
with resistance to the disease.
What does overhunting, bycatch or development of real estate that
significantly reduces habitat do?
|
Well, all would probably produce critters that are better at hiding?
Smaller fish, urban foxes... However, the likely outcome, and by
definition with "overhunting", is extinction. But if you're looking
at humans, we know we survived. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
