The Oklahoma State Legislature - Keeping You Safe From Evolution

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090330_11_A1_Statel165138


Dispute evolves on OU speech by scientist
The controversy brings in paperwork and resolutions by state lawmakers.

By SHANNON MUCHMORE World Staff Writer
Published: 3/30/2009 2:21 AM
Last Modified: 3/30/2009 3:28 AM

State lawmakers hit the University of Oklahoma with a barrage of paperwork earlier this month, crafting resolutions to condemn the school for inviting a noted evolutionary biologist and requesting reams of information about his visit.

In response, OU President David Boren said recently that colleges and universities should be a free marketplace of ideas, and it is inappropriate for legislators to attempt to restrict speech on campuses.

The resolution, which the House didn't have time to put up for a vote, chastised OU for inviting scientist and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins to speak earlier this month as part of the university's celebration of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday.

Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-Oklahoma City, filed a lengthy open records request with the university, asking for any correspondence regarding Dawkins' speech, information on any costs to OU, a list of any money Dawkins received and who provided the funds, and any other "pertinent financial information."

Dawkins waived his speaking fees for the event, a university spokeswoman said. Hamilton could not be reached for comment Thursday or Friday.

Boren said free speech on campus should be paramount.

"I can remember debating these issues when I was in the Legislature and I'm proud to stay I always stood on the side of academic freedom in those discussions," Boren said in an interview last week.

Legislators should not be limited in what kind of resolution they can file, but they should be mindful
of free speech issues, Boren said.

"I have great faith in the ability of our students to make their own sound judgments about what they hear," he said.

State Rep. Todd Thomsen, R-Ada, filed a resolution this session opposing Dawkins' invitation to speak at OU and the university's actions "to indoctrinate students in the theory of evolution."

In a phone interview Thursday, Thomsen said the university has a right to bring any speaker it chooses, but is accountable to taxpayers. On behalf of his constituents, Thomsen wanted to present the opinion that Dawkins doesn't represent Oklahoma's ideals.

"They're not in a plastic bubble that can't be touched," he said.

Dawkins' approach doesn't present freedom of thought and opinion, Thomsen said.

"His presence at OU was not about science," he said. "It was to promote an atheistic agenda, and that was very clear."

Richard Broughton, an OU zoology professor and president of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, said the resolution claimed to support a free exchange of ideas on campuses, but actually aimed to restrict freedom of speech.

"It just seemed self-contradictory," he said.

The speech by Dawkins, who decided on the spot to donate $5,000 from his foundation to OESE, was well received by those who attended, he said.

Dawkins likely attracted particular attention because of his outspoken atheism, not just his ideas about evolution, Broughton said.

Dawkins is the author of the best-seller "The God Delusion."

Regardless of whether the majority of Oklahomans believe in evolution, it is a scientific theory that no evidence contradicts, Broughton said.

OESE is a nonprofit organization that supports the teaching of evolution in public schools.

It seems inappropriate for the Legislature to single out one person and try to blacklist them, Broughton said.

"It just seems antithetical to the whole idea of a university," he said.

Dawkins commented on the resolution filed against him when he began his March 6 speech at OU.

The idea that the university could only hear opinions with which the majority of Oklahomans agree is bizarre and offensive, Dawkins said.

"If that principle is accepted, you can kiss goodbye to anything that a university ever stands for," he said. "What's a university for if it only reinforces opinions students already have? As it happens, evolution is a scientific fact as securely established as any fact known in science."

[SoonerAtKU]

Why the hell do people from Oklahoma have to make me feel ashamed to be from Oklahoma sometimes?

[Boomerbrad]

On behalf of your neighbors to North, thank you...we are tired of being crazies

[OhU1]

What an embarrassment. I like it when the legislature is out of session. It's things such as this that make it more difficult to dispel stereotypes of Oklahomans as uneducated and backward. My avatar is even embarrased.

[SoonerAtKU]

No kidding, when a group of morons makes an institution of higher learning look like Westboro Baptist, we should all be ashamed.

[soonerscuba]

"They're not in a plastic bubble that can't be touched," he said.
Yes, it is. The reason why OU can't be touched is we don't want the rest of the state infecting it with it's crazy. If the state pushes the students, Boren and faculty, the state will lose.

[GottaHavePride]

http://holamun2.com/legacy/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/jesus-statue.jpg

[GottaHavePride]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/f7/FACEPALM.JPG

[1890MilesToNorman]

The University should be allowed to invite anyone to speak to the student body they want! I don't buy the evolution theory myself but the kids should hear all sides. I hope they invite others to speak that have out of the box theories that are shunned by mainstream gov grant grabbers. Teach them to think, not to sensor ideas.

[KABOOKIE]

Regardless of whether the majority of Oklahomans believe in evolution, it is a scientific theory that no evidence contradicts, Broughton said.

Umm really?

[1890MilesToNorman]

I forgot to add that the Oklahoma legislature doesn't hold a candle to the dumb****s in the Northeast!!

[OKLA21FAN]

http://heesey.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/picard-headesk.jpg

[sitzpinkler]

Umm really?

Yeah, pretty much.

Do you have any evidence that disproves it?

I'd be really interested to read this probably-religious-based information if you could be so kind as to enlighten us with it.

[JohnnyMack]

Umm really?

http://dinosaurfanfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/raptor-jesus.jpg

[KC//CRIMSON]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y258/KingpinPadre/worffrustration.gif

[OKLA21FAN]

http://sondrak.com/images/uploads/pope_face_palm.jpg

[47straight]

Nice spin on the title of this thread. While the University absolutely should be a place where ideas are discussed freely without interference from the legistlature, the lege didn't get involved because an evolutionary biologist was invited to speak. I have a feeling numerous evolutionary biologists speak on campus three times each and every week as part of the classes they teach. They felt compelled because a hateful, bigoted evangelist for atheism was invited to campus to speak.

I can't see where there's really a difference between this and when Columbia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. The school isn't conferring any honors. Yeah, the speaker is a little distasteful and a jerk. Locals can decry him. But discourse is part of what the school exists for.

[KABOOKIE]

Yeah, pretty much.

Do you have any evidence that disproves it?

I'd be really interested to read this probably-religious-based information if you could be so kind as to enlighten us with it.

No. This is just from what I learned at OU. A finch is still a finch.

[KABOOKIE]

Like the article said, I like to think the students can make their own thought processes given the information provided. Don’t get me wrong though, I think what the state legislature is doing is plain stupid. Just about as plain stupid as someone who believes evolution is a proven fact or those who don’t believe it to be a proven fact do so because they’re wrapped around the religious axle.

[NYC Poke]

I didn't used to believe in evolution but my opinion evolved.

[1890MilesToNorman]

My great grandfather, 10,000,000 times removed was not a friggin monkey! It might have been Olevet but I haven't followed the tree that fer.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Agreed. It is wrong to censor thought, except in few limited circumstances, such as obscene stuff in certain circumstances, or shouting fire in a theater, etc. It's important to keep an open mind. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klavan29-2009mar29,0,5456892.story

[JohnnyMack]

Agreed. It is wrong to censor thought, except in few limited circumstances, such as obscene stuff in certain circumstances, or shouting fire in a theater, etc. It's important to keep an open mind. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klavan29-2009mar29,0,5456892.story

I listen to Laura Ingraham on the way in to work just about every day.

As far as the OP goes, regardless of who was speaking about what this is a classic example of the government wasting our time and our money.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I listen to Laura Ingraham on the way in to work just about every day.

As far as the OP goes, regardless of who was speaking about what this is a classic example of the government wasting our time and our money.The Law of Averages or something assures that even you and I agree on some things.

[Frozen Sooner]

I listen to Laura Ingraham on the way in to work just about every day.




The Law of Averages or something assures that even you and I agree on some things.

What, you both think Meghan McCain is fat?

'Cause I don't. She's dang good lookin'.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What, you both think Meghan McCain is fat?

'Cause I don't. She's dang good lookin'.'Zat what Laura's talking about these days? I saw her give a speech here in PHX 3 or 4 yrs ago.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, she and Meghan McCain got into a public spat about something stupid and Ingraham said something about Meghan being plus-size or something. I wasn't paying a lot of attention, to be truthful.

For the record, I would like to take my chances on reproductive success with Meghan.

[Okla-homey]

That is just political grandstanding to appeal to the base. While the base is distracted, by such silliness, they are about to work the greatest limitation of your fundamental rights ever enacted by the Okie legislature.

The brain trust on Lincoln Boulevard are working to severely restrain your VII Amendment rights, which is the only power Joe Schmuckatelli has left against The Man. They don't say that, they label it "lawsuit reform," but that's what it is. Plain and Simple.

[GottaHavePride]

My great grandfather, 10,000,000 times removed was not a friggin monkey! It might have been Olevet but I haven't followed the tree that fer.

Common misconception. Monkeys could not have been ancestors of humans, primarily because monkeys and humans both exist right now. The evolutionary argument would be that most primates (monkeys, great apes, and humans, included) are all closely related enough that they probably are all descended from some unspecified common ancestor many millions of years ago.

Whatever that "missing link" might have been, they haven't found an example yet. But it wouldn't have been a monkey in any case.

[Frozen Sooner]

Common misconception. Monkeys could not have been ancestors of humans, primarily because monkeys and humans both exist right now.

Actually, this isn't correct. The mere fact that a species still exists does not preclude it from being a genetic ancestor of another species. Speciation could have occured for several different reasons that would have left both groups with reproductive advantages in their own milieu.

However, in this case it's more likely that man and monkey had a common ancestor instead of one coming from the other.

[AlbqSooner]

Dear Oklahoma Legislature. You tried this when a very young Julian Bond was invited to speak at Gallagher Hall (from which evolved Gallagher-Iba Arena). It didn't play well then. (A time when Oklahoma had a law on the books banning miscegenation - you can google that word). It doesn't play well now.

Education without controversy is not education. It is indoctrination.

[Harry Beanbag]

As far as the OP goes, regardless of who was speaking about what this is a classic example of the government wasting our time and our money.


We get at least two or three examples every day now. The government is the problem.

[starclassic tama]

Nice spin on the title of this thread. While the University absolutely should be a place where ideas are discussed freely without interference from the legistlature, the lege didn't get involved because an evolutionary biologist was invited to speak. I have a feeling numerous evolutionary biologists speak on campus three times each and every week as part of the classes they teach. They felt compelled because a hateful, bigoted evangelist for atheism was invited to campus to speak.

I can't see where there's really a difference between this and when Columbia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. The school isn't conferring any honors. Yeah, the speaker is a little distasteful and a jerk. Locals can decry him. But discourse is part of what the school exists for.

haha this post is ridiculous. dawkins is a BIOLOGIST, a SCIENTIST. evangelist for atheism? i can't even fathom how dumb this is. almost as dumb as the people who say "evolution isn't a proven fact." dumb dumb dumb. to become a scientific theory, an idea has to be backed by heaps and heaps of empirical data. which natural selection most definitely is. when you say you don't believe in evolution, what you are really saying is i don't believe DNA exists, i don't believe genetic traits are passed down from parents to offspring. which means you are dumb.

[Crucifax Autumn]

As far as the OP goes, regardless of who was speaking about what this is a classic example of the government wasting our time and our Monkey.

Fixed

[Crucifax Autumn]

haha this post is ridiculous. dawkins is a BIOLOGIST, a SCIENTIST. evangelist for atheism? i can't even fathom how dumb this is.


Oh come on...denying the holocaust, being a total ****tard, threatening the world and calling for the annhilation of a country/race is way nicer than being a scientist! lol

[Fraggle145]

Umm really?

Yes.

[Fraggle145]

Actually, this isn't correct. The mere fact that a species still exists does not preclude it from being a genetic ancestor of another species. Speciation could have occured for several different reasons that would have left both groups with reproductive advantages in their own milieu.

However, in this case it's more likely that man and monkey had a common ancestor instead of one coming from the other.

This.

[Fraggle145]

My great grandfather, 10,000,000 times removed was not a friggin monkey! It might have been Olevet but I haven't followed the tree that fer.

You know we share about ~98% of our genetic code with Chimpanzee's right?

[Crucifax Autumn]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I DEvolved from a superior alien race that seeded the earth millennia ago.

[Crucifax Autumn]

You know we share about ~98% of our genetic code with Chimpanzee's right?

in 1890's defense, vet shares 99.5% of his genetic code with baboons, so he may have a point about the old bastard being his 10,000,001th removed garndpappy and still be correct in his assertation that he is not decended from a chimp.

[Fraggle145]

The real problem with this whole thing is that people cant separate evolution from how life began and the understanding of time. Evolution doesnt really postulate how life or genetic material began only that once it was here it changes through natural selection, genetic drift and adaptive radiation. Evolution is as accepted as gravity in the scientific community.

This whole thing is so incredibly frustrating. We have had the most impressive assemblage of speakers on Evolution this semester in the entire nation. Both in how the theory came about and what it means.

Dawkins' talk had very little to do with atheism (I was there, surprise.) except when the topic came up in the questions period after the talk. His talk was about explaining purpose and how our ability as humans to subvert purpose and create goals was to our evolutionary advantage.

[Fraggle145]

in 1890's defense, vet shares 99.5% of his genetic code with baboons, so he may have a point about the old bastard being his 10,000,001th removed garndpappy and still be correct in his assertation that he is not decended from a chimp.

good point :D ;)

[starclassic tama]

i don't understand fraggle. evolution has given us a thorough scientific understanding of how life began, starting with simple organic molecules.

[Fraggle145]

There was also this guy...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lf6ZF4iGiwY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lf6ZF4iGiwY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Fraggle145]

i don't understand fraggle. evolution has given us a thorough scientific understanding of how life began, starting with simple organic molecules.

Actually, that was other studies, but there certainly isn't a consensus. I think you are thinking of the Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment). Evolution as a theory, doesnt explain how those molecules came together in the first place. Dont get me wrong, I dont think there was divine intervention, but that is a whole different can of worms.

[starclassic tama]

"you will not slander my god in front of god" 5 seconds later... "i am not a theologian!" what a retar******

[starclassic tama]

i was thinking more along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life and the primordial soup. which is not a central part of the evolution theory, but i think it will be someday when it is better understood.

edit: that guy in that video was not a biologist. he had a bachelors, not a PhD.

[Fraggle145]

i was thinking more along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life and the primordial soup. which is not a central part of the evolution theory, but i think it will be someday when it is better understood.

Oh sure. No doubt if/when we can grasp the origin of life it will certainly be incorporated into the theory.

The other thing to remember is that the theory has been modified from its original form with the Modern Synthesis, and punctuated equilibrium. Darwin didnt get everything correct in the first shot. However, as we found out more the data still fit the rigorous tests of natural selection and drift.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Only folks with PhD's get to have opinions?

I tasted primordial soup once, tasted like regular ole chicken noodle to me.

[XingTheRubicon]

You know we share about ~98% of our genetic code with Chimpanzee's right?

or 96%, however much you want to exaggerate.

We actually all come from mice anyway.

[jkjsooner]

My great grandfather, 10,000,000 times removed was not a friggin monkey! It might have been Olevet but I haven't followed the tree that fer.

Serious question... Why do so many find it so insulting to think that we may have originated from a primate? Is it really that damaging to their self esteem? Afterall, we have advanced from that form so we're not at all monkeys...

I also find it funny that some people truly believe the world is 6000 years old and the dinosaurs didn't actually exist or existed within the last few thousand years.

There is so much evidence that the earth is very old. Many different dating mechanisms (carbon, etc), tons of geological mechanisms that can still be seen today, etc. The young earth Christians try so hard to run around and discredit each of the hundreds of ways that indicate the Earth has been around for a long time.

Anyway, this whole issue is an embarrassment. This goes way beyond anything Kansas does. As far as I know they at least tend to keep out of higher education. Goodness, this is a University not a Jr. High.

[jkjsooner]

Common misconception. Monkeys could not have been ancestors of humans, primarily because monkeys and humans both exist right now. The evolutionary argument would be that most primates (monkeys, great apes, and humans, included) are all closely related enough that they probably are all descended from some unspecified common ancestor many millions of years ago.

Whatever that "missing link" might have been, they haven't found an example yet. But it wouldn't have been a monkey in any case.

That is not correct. If a group of monkeys became geographically isolated from each other, one group could easily have adapted to their new environment while the other had no reason/need to adapt.

When I say "could have adapted" I mean through random processes with positive feedback.

[soonerscuba]

Serious question... Why do so many find it so insulting to think that we may have originated from a primate? Is it really that damaging to their self esteem? Afterall, we have advanced from that form so we're not at all monkeys...Because the idea that we are linked to another animal through a common ancestor is silliness. I can only get behind ideas that make sense, like a talking snake in a tree.

[jkjsooner]

Oh my gosh, this is the same Todd Thompsen who played at OU.

[OhU1]

But, but, evolution is just a THEORY! A Theory. That means they are just guessing! Theory means it isn't proven. No one has ever seen a monkey evolve into a human and falsified the test as required by real science. Also for evolution to be true you have to believe that 500 monkeys sitting at a typewriter could write a book by random chance. And what about the fossil where a hammer was discovered inside? More proof that the world is only 5000 years old. :texan:

[jkjsooner]

Also for evolution to be true you have to believe that 500 monkeys sitting at a typewriter could write a book by random chance.

I think you are severely understating the probability of evolutionary progress. These are tiny tiny steps over thousands of years with constant positive feedback for the good steps. We didn't just go from a primate to a human overnight. Plenty of evolutionary biologists question the probabilities presented by creationists.

Even some ideas such as irreducible complexity have been successfully challenged recently. For example, they've determined that a concave indention in the head is enough for directional differentiation. The nerve impulses can be processed to act as a rudimentary eye. Prior to this it was argued that even the most simplistic eye was too complex to have occured in one evoluationary step.

I think you are wrong to say a theory is just a guess. It starts with an educated guess but can be backed up by experimentation and observation. Just because it is not yet a law does not mean it is still only a guess.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Serious question... Why do so many find it so insulting to think that we may have originated from a primate?

Because it's not fact, it theory! The same reason folks get upset when others say the planet was seeded by ET's, it's not fact it's theory. Humans are a presumptuous bunch who think they know everything when in fact our knowledge is constantly, dare I say, Evolving. We answer one question and many more crop up because of the answer.

My previous post was humor, nothing more nothing less. :D As is this one.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I already told ya I'm DEvolved from alien seeding...FACT!

[47straight]

haha this post is ridiculous. dawkins is a BIOLOGIST, a SCIENTIST. evangelist for atheism? i can't even fathom how dumb this is. almost as dumb as the people who say "evolution isn't a proven fact." dumb dumb dumb. to become a scientific theory, an idea has to be backed by heaps and heaps of empirical data. which natural selection most definitely is. when you say you don't believe in evolution, what you are really saying is i don't believe DNA exists, i don't believe genetic traits are passed down from parents to offspring. which means you are dumb.

I'd say the author of the "The God Delusion" qualifies as an evangelist for atheism. Not because he is a biologist. He happens to be a biologist. That was the whole point of my entire post. I'm sorry you showed up drunk and couldn't understand.

[C&CDean]

1. Free speech should be allowed at OU without interference from our legislature.

2. If our legislature didn't get involved, nobody (except the folks who were at the speech) would even give a ****.

3. There's a lot of atheists in this thread prosletyzing about how right they are and how much they believe their ideas to be correct. Kinda sound like the hard-core religious nuts in reverse to me.

4. The fact is, none of us know for sure. And when we trust a bunch of eggheads (no offense to the lofty Phds on this board who feel like they are the only ones worthy of an opinion on such deep matters) or a bunch of whack job preachers to feed us ideas then we're pretty much all ****ed.

[SouthFortySooner]

What I learned was, the theory said, we evolve. It did not say, we evolved from monkeys.

The first premise I agree with totally. The second, not.

[sitzpinkler]

I think you are severely understating the probability of evolutionary progress. These are tiny tiny steps over thousands of years with constant positive feedback for the good steps. We didn't just go from a primate to a human overnight. Plenty of evolutionary biologists question the probabilities presented by creationists.

Even some ideas such as irreducible complexity have been successfully challenged recently. For example, they've determined that a concave indention in the head is enough for directional differentiation. The nerve impulses can be processed to act as a rudimentary eye. Prior to this it was argued that even the most simplistic eye was too complex to have occured in one evoluationary step.

I think you are wrong to say a theory is just a guess. It starts with an educated guess but can be backed up by experimentation and observation. Just because it is not yet a law does not mean it is still only a guess.

I think OhU1 was just being sarcastic, but nice response nonetheless :D

[TMcGee86]

You know we share about ~98% of our genetic code with Chimpanzee's right?


You know we share over 90% with a field mouse?

We also share in the neighborhood of 20% with earthworms.

Trust me when I say this, that 2%, is a very large difference. It doesnt prove anything.

Not that I'm denying evolution. I just cringe when I see that stat used.

[KABOOKIE]

Yes.

Again….Um, really? Because even our distinguished guest Mr. Dawkins has written about interesting challenges that go against the modern theory of evolution.


You know we share about ~98% of our genetic code with Chimpanzee's right?

And yet Chimp DNA is still Chimp DNA. Who is the common ancestor? Cambrian-era?


Evolution is as accepted as gravity in the scientific community.

Amazing for a theory that stills has huge holes in it. It could also possibly be that it’s so widely accepted because one alternative is well… something we can’t discuss.

[TMcGee86]

haha this post is ridiculous. dawkins is a BIOLOGIST, a SCIENTIST. evangelist for atheism? i can't even fathom how dumb this is. almost as dumb as the people who say "evolution isn't a proven fact." dumb dumb dumb. to become a scientific theory, an idea has to be backed by heaps and heaps of empirical data. which natural selection most definitely is. when you say you don't believe in evolution, what you are really saying is i don't believe DNA exists, i don't believe genetic traits are passed down from parents to offspring. which means you are dumb.

Interesting that you would use that term there instead of merely "evolution".

You are right, natural selection is beyond reproach.

The problem being, as stated before, a finch is still a finch. Long bill or short bill.

Yet, in 150 years of trying, we have yet to witness a single organism "evolve" into another species of organism. Even in the most simple bacteria.

I happen to think it is because 150 years is but a speck of time on the evolutionary scale, but it does make me wonder why we can't manipulate it into happening sooner.

[TMcGee86]

I also find it funny that some people truly believe the world is 6000 years old and the dinosaurs didn't actually exist or existed within the last few thousand years.

I agree.

My main problem with this is that the Bible does not say that. And yet, millions of morons are more than willing to latch on to that, in the name of God, despite the fact that there are mountains of evidence to the contrary, and, oh by the way, the Bible doesn't say that.

[starclassic tama]

Only folks with PhD's get to have opinions?

I tasted primordial soup once, tasted like regular ole chicken noodle to me.

no, i didn't say that. only people with PhD's are -ist's, psychologists, biologists, etc. kabookie you keep saying the theory has huge holes in it but you have no idea what they are and you are really just talking out of your a$$. and TMcgee, natural selection = evolution.

i'm going to break this down one time for everyone because it doesn't appear some in this thread understand the least bit how this thing works. as our cells reproduce, genes cross over each other and bump into each other causing small random variations in genes. this happens, we can watch it under a microscope. those genes are changed, causing (most of the time) very useless changes in the daughter organism. sometimes, the changes happen to work out to the daughter organism's advantage. some organisms are more viable to live succesfully in the environment. over a VERY LONG period of time, NOT one generation cycle or even a few generation cycles, the organisms with the genes that code for traits that are beneficial to survival are the ones that end up with the most genes in the gene pool. thus over MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, not 150, you get the wonderful complex array of life we have on our planet today. THIS is evolution by natural selection, and this is absolutely without question how it works.

[C&CDean]

Anytime I see someone say "this is absolutely without question how it works" I think "mom, is that you?" Mom will tell you exactly how it's gonna go down when you die.

Of course mom is about half nuts too.

[Frozen Sooner]

no, i didn't say that. only people with PhD's are -ist's, psychologists, biologists, etc. kabookie you keep saying the theory has huge holes in it but you have no idea what they are and you are really just talking out of your a$$. and TMcgee, natural selection = evolution.

i'm going to break this down one time for everyone because it doesn't appear some in this thread understand the least bit how this thing works. as our cells reproduce, genes cross over each other and bump into each other causing small random variations in genes. this happens, we can watch it under a microscope. those genes are changed, causing (most of the time) very useless changes in the daughter organism. sometimes, the changes happen to work out to the daughter organism's advantage. some organisms are more viable to live succesfully in the environment. over a VERY LONG period of time, NOT one generation cycle or even a few generation cycles, the organisms with the genes that code for traits that are beneficial to survival are the ones that end up with the most genes in the gene pool. thus over MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, not 150, you get the wonderful complex array of life we have on our planet today. THIS is evolution by natural selection, and this is absolutely without question how it works.

Correction: natural selection is one avenue of evolution. Speciation can and does occur through other means.

[starclassic tama]

hmm i've never heard the term speciation before. but i'm still an underclassmen. interesting, wikipedia says speciation is achieved normally through natural selection or genetic drift. elaborate on speciation for me frozen if you would, thanks.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fraggle's going to probably blow a gasket when he sees my extremely non-scientific definition of speciation, but here goes:

Speciation is the process by which a new species comes into being. This can occur through natural selection, genetic drift, geographical drift, or mutation.

[starclassic tama]

natural selection encompasses genetic drift, geographical drift, and mutation, so i'm confused.

[jkjsooner]

Because it's not fact, it theory! The same reason folks get upset when others say the planet was seeded by ET's, it's not fact it's theory. Humans are a presumptuous bunch who think they know everything when in fact our knowledge is constantly, dare I say, Evolving. We answer one question and many more crop up because of the answer.

My previous post was humor, nothing more nothing less. :D As is this one.

That is fine but saying, "I did not evolve from some darn monkey," as I hear often, implies something more than a general disbelief in the theory of evolution. In my eyes the way many people state it implies that they are personally insulted by the idea.

[Frozen Sooner]

It actually does not. Genetic drift, geographical drift, and mutation can all occur absent of selective forces.

[NYC Poke]

The theory of gravity is just a theory, but I trust it enough not to jump off my building.

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind and sails

Are we not men?

[TMcGee86]

Correction: natural selection is one avenue of evolution. Speciation can and does occur through other means.

This.

And yes starclassic, I know, as I clearly stated, that 150 years is a minuscule time, biologically speaking, however, at the rate bacteria reproduce, we are talking about a significant amount of generations.

Given the right conditions, certain bacteria could reproduce enough times in 9 days to outnumber the amount of neutrons contained on the Earth.

This = a lot.

And yet, no new species. This vexes me. I'm terribly vexed.

[starclassic tama]

ok well i'm sticking with my general biology for majors teacher who got her PhD from cal-berkeley. i was taught that natural selection encompasses that. after all, natural selection is basically just the gene pool, and the genes that are more numerous were "naturally selected" for, so i have no idea how genetic drift etc would play by different rules.

where are you getting that no new species of bacteria are being produced? the people at the national center for disease control who deal with heaps of new strains of bacteria/virii everyday wonder what you are talking about.

[1890MilesToNorman]

I'm about to start my advanced beer drinking class, topic for the day is why do I like it so much? I have a theory but I need much more practical experience before I write my thesis.

I'll be back later and we can discuss abortion, why the French smell and other tantalizing issues I'm sure we can all agree on.

[starclassic tama]

1. Free speech should be allowed at OU without interference from our legislature.

2. If our legislature didn't get involved, nobody (except the folks who were at the speech) would even give a ****.

3. There's a lot of atheists in this thread prosletyzing about how right they are and how much they believe their ideas to be correct. Kinda sound like the hard-core religious nuts in reverse to me.

4. The fact is, none of us know for sure. And when we trust a bunch of eggheads (no offense to the lofty Phds on this board who feel like they are the only ones worthy of an opinion on such deep matters) or a bunch of whack job preachers to feed us ideas then we're pretty much all ****ed.

who in this thread professed to being an atheist? i don't see anyone. why would we trust these "eggheads" with PhD's? the same "eggheads" you trust when you get sick and go to the hospital. you know, the ones who use science and empirical data to make you better. the difference between the religious fanatics and the evolutionists is the evolutionist has observational data to support their claims, but are still dismissed by ignorant tardos who can't tell the difference.

[Frozen Sooner]

ok well i'm sticking with my general biology for majors teacher who got her PhD from cal-berkeley. i was taught that natural selection encompasses that. after all, natural selection is basically just the gene pool, and the genes that are more numerous were "naturally selected" for, so i have no idea how genetic drift etc would play by different rules.

Well, there's the founder effect for one. Consider a population that breaks away from the main population that has either an overabundance or a paucity of a specific trait. With no selective pressure, that trait (or lack) becomes universal in the population. This is not natural selection, as no reproductive advantage is conferred by the trait.

[soonermix]

I'm about to start my advanced beer drinking class

can i sign up for this class?
but only a tues/thurs class after noon.

[Fraggle145]

Yet, in 150 years of trying, we have yet to witness a single organism "evolve" into another species of organism. Even in the most simple bacteria.

I happen to think it is because 150 years is but a speck of time on the evolutionary scale, but it does make me wonder why we can't manipulate it into happening sooner.

This is simply not true. Look at Carl Woese's experiments with bacteria. The problem being is that there isnt a good definition for species. The definitions vary widely. What is the cut off for a new species? by the definition of microbiology between bacteria (3% cut off for example), us and chimps are the same species. That was the point I was making. And the last study I saw was that us and chimps were 98.6% similiar (for XTR). This can also change depending on which area of the genome you are looking at.

Kabookie, what are these "gaping holes" that you keep saying there are? I have yet to see you point to one. Since it has begun to be studied nobody has been able to satisfactorily falsify it yet.

[Fraggle145]

Well, there's the founder effect for one. Consider a population that breaks away from the main population that has either an overabundance or a paucity of a specific trait. With no selective pressure, that trait (or lack) becomes universal in the population. This is not natural selection, as no reproductive advantage is conferred by the trait.

Good example froze. There are some many schools of thought out there as far as drift vs natural selection. Some like to say one encompasses the other or outweighs the other. Its a combination IMO. You did a pretty good job on the speciation thing I thought.

[Fraggle145]

Anytime I see someone say "this is absolutely without question how it works" I think "mom, is that you?" Mom will tell you exactly how it's gonna go down when you die.

Of course mom is about half nuts too.

What about gravity? or sex theory?

[1890MilesToNorman]

What about gravity? or sex theory?

The person on top is the one being pulled toward the person on bottom. This one needs more examination too.

[KABOOKIE]

no, i didn't say that. only people with PhD's are -ist's, psychologists, biologists, etc. kabookie you keep saying the theory has huge holes in it but you have no idea what they are and you are really just talking out of your a$$. and TMcgee, natural selection = evolution.

i'm going to break this down one time for everyone because it doesn't appear some in this thread understand the least bit how this thing works. as our cells reproduce, genes cross over each other and bump into each other causing small random variations in genes. this happens, we can watch it under a microscope. those genes are changed, causing (most of the time) very useless changes in the daughter organism. sometimes, the changes happen to work out to the daughter organism's advantage. some organisms are more viable to live succesfully in the environment. over a VERY LONG period of time, NOT one generation cycle or even a few generation cycles, the organisms with the genes that code for traits that are beneficial to survival are the ones that end up with the most genes in the gene pool. thus over MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, not 150, you get the wonderful complex array of life we have on our planet today. THIS is evolution by natural selection, and this is absolutely without question how it works.

For someone who claims I am speaking out of my *** it appears you yourself have no idea WTF you're talking about.

[starclassic tama]

care to cite an example to back up that statement?


Well, there's the founder effect for one. Consider a population that breaks away from the main population that has either an overabundance or a paucity of a specific trait. With no selective pressure, that trait (or lack) becomes universal in the population. This is not natural selection, as no reproductive advantage is conferred by the trait.

thanks. i read a little more into it, and this makes sense. but this is a very very small portion of evolutionary theory, and natural selection is the driving force behind 99% of evolution.

[Jacie]

The Theory of Evolution (TOE) is a misnomer and no, it is not "full of holes" as has been posted.

This theory is supported by evidence, a lot of it. If there was a single damning piece of evidence that contradicted the TOE that information would be front page news because then there would be no TOE. There would have to be some other explanation that could explain all the previous evidence and the new piece that shot down the old theory. That is how science works.

As far as scientists are concerned, evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. It has and continues to happen. The contingent that has no problem holding the advancement of knowledge to a level achieved sometime before the birth of Leonardo DaVinci refuses to accept that their side lost the argument a long time ago, recycling old ideas and "proof" that evolution cannot happen, as well as trying new strategies to sneak their counter idea (aka creationism) in the back door of the American education system. Their latest loss was in the state of Pennsylvania but they continue to enjoy support among our less evolved neighbors to the north, unfortunately. I don't understand why some people prefer superstition to reason, just that as a person who has studied science and worked as a geologist and a science teacher, know that we still have to battle ignorance and worse even here in 2009 and that people, is sad.

Now if you are basing all of the knowledge that has accumulated in the fields of biology and geology on faith, then that's another matter. Might as well not even bother to teach either of these subjects at any level because nothing you might say could not be contradicted by some biblical quote or another.

[Frozen Sooner]

OK, folks, theory doesn't mean in this context what people are trying to make it mean.

In common usage, theory can mean a wild, speculative guess. It does not mean that when used in a scientific context.

A theory (in science) is an explanation for all observable facts that is falsifiable. That is, a fact could conceivably be observed that would disprove the theory.

Moreover, there is no "Theory of Evolution." Evolution is an observable fact. The theory that seems to be causing controversy is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection-which is the explanation that some evolution is caused by reproductive success.

No observable fact has falsified the theory of evolution by natural selection. Attacks have been made based on lack of evidence or based on probability. None of these falsify the theory itself.

Note that this disqualifies "Creation Science" as an actual theory, as it is not falsifiable. There is no way to prove that at some point there was a sentient being that put all this into motion or sustains it through their will.

Edit: left out that a theory also should have a predictive side, which is part of falsifiability. A "theory" that can't be used to make predictions isn't a scientific theory.

[Frozen Sooner]

thanks. i read a little more into it, and this makes sense. but this is a very very small portion of evolutionary theory, and natural selection is the driving force behind 99% of evolution.

I'm willing to posit that the vast majority of evolution is due to natural selection. However, we shouldn't ignore that evolution does occur due to other factors.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I'm willing to posit that the vast majority of evolution is due to natural selection. However, we shouldn't ignore that evolution does occur due to other factors.

Examples being, beer goggles and grenade jumping for one's wingman.

[jkjsooner]

What's really funny is that the young earth creationists bring out these obscure people who supposedly tear big holes in everything that goes against their beliefs.

So and so with a PhD from Harvard says that carbon dating has been proven to be totally unreliable.

So and so from Oxford says that the probability of the most simple bacteria being generated by natural processes is 10^(10^100) or whatever. (Like anyone really knows enough to put a probability on something like that.)

Then the bible beaters go telling everyone that these things have been proven false and that the scientific community withholding this information...

There's no mention that there are hundreds of thousands of PhD's from these prestigious universities and you can always find one freak (or a person who will say anything for a buck) who will go against the scientific norm. There's no mention how these things are never published in peer reviewed journals.

As for me, I will allow myself to believe in God and evolution at the same time. I am very comfortable with the idea that faith and science are two separate and distinct fields and should remain so. I will not let someone pin me down to some infallable literal interpretation of the Bible that would force me away from my beliefs.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

As for me, I will allow myself to believe in God and evolution at the same time. I am very comfortable with the idea that faith and science are two separate and distinct fields and should remain so. I will not let someone pin me down to some infallable literal interpretation of the Bible that would force me away from my beliefs.

That sounds awful insightful.

But can't they also walk hand in hand, with what we discover as science being the overall work of an omnipotent, creating force that we as Man, at our current state of development, simply can't comprehend the scope of?

Hence the whole "God" thing?

[starclassic tama]

if you want to take that leap. just know that there is no evidence to back that claim up and realize you are making a distinct leap not based in reality to connect the two to satisfy a personal qualm you might have.

[jkjsooner]

They can work hand in hand but at their root they are completely different. One is based on observation and reason and the scientific method and should remain that way.

Creationism is a valid alternative to evolution but it is not science. I have no problem with a single line mentioning it as an alternative theory but it should be stated that it is not a theory based on scientific principles.

I have no problem with a discussion of criticisms of evolution in science as long as they have a scientific basis and are peer reviewed and properly analyzed.

[starclassic tama]

how can it be a valid alternative if it's not based on scientific principles?

[jkjsooner]

if you want to take that leap. just know that there is no evidence to back that claim up and realize you are making a distinct leap not based in reality to connect the two to satisfy a personal qualm you might have.

If you're talking about my comment then I have no problem with that as the word faith pretty much assumes little evidence.

One reason I must believe in something beyond science is that I don't believe science can or will ever be able to explain the qualia we (I presume those other than myself) have. I can make the connection between the physical brain being necessary to experience sensory but not actually creating the experience itself. Anyway, but that is WAY off topic...

[jkjsooner]

how can it be a valid alternative if it's not based on scientific principles?

A valid alternative in non-scientific terms - not as a valid scientific theory.

I personally wouldn't put a note in a biology textbook about it but if that's what it takes to keep them from removing evolution altogether then I'm fine with it.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

if you want to take that leap. just know that there is no evidence to back that claim up and realize you are making a distinct leap not based in reality to connect the two to satisfy a personal qualm you might have.

Check this out. It's math, and the germans make math so it has to be good.

Belief - Evidence = Faith

A major tenet of religion worldwide. And when you combine something as beautiful as faith with the basic observations of Man and his amazing capacity of discovery, you come to a rather simple conclusion. Faith and science DO go together, just like peanut butter and chocolate. Not to explain away one another, but as reinforcement of one to the other. Faith reinforces the evidence of science as it sheds light on the volumes of intricacies found in the natural world that walk in such a harmonious balance. The evidence of science reinforces my faith because as we discover these intricacies, we discover even more questions as to exactly how our universe works, a theme of many theories but a bearer of infinitesimally few laws, glowing as a reminder that we are not supreme in our bailiwick, we are not gods of our domain.

So to many of us in the 'distinctly leaping' world, there are stacks of evidence to reinforce what we deem as faith WITHIN the stacks of evidence we know as science. And we take them even as folks like yourself stare down condescending noses and scoff at our "personal qualms" that are "not based in reality".

The minute you have the user's manual that covers all the nuts and bolts of what reality is and how it's defined, then maybe you'll have something besides a feeble attempt at down putting what folks see as majesty amidst your facts and figures.

[starclassic tama]

not really sure why you think what i said was so condescending. but fair enough. i accept the fact that i never will understand faith, believing things with no evidence, much less how that supposedly goes hand in hand with science.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

A valid alternative in non-scientific terms - not as a valid scientific theory.

I personally wouldn't put a note in a biology textbook about it but if that's what it takes to keep them from removing evolution altogether then I'm fine with it.

I wouldn't either. Biology is biology. What kills me about these threads every time they fire up is the exclusivity of creationism and evolution to one another. Like both sides are choosing sides and loading up all forward batteries for a slugfest.

There's no reason for it.

I can accept evolution. I can accept creationism. I can accept that there are basic, tested, peer-reviewed and consented facts in regards to our development as a species. I can accept that this is true and because of my faith in a Creator, that very thing was guided/initiated by a divine presence that according to the doctrines of that faith we are not able to understand the will of.

It doesn't discredit any scientific discovery whatsoever. It doesn't try to bury faith under a mountain of of those very discoveries. It shows the beautiful power of God in that the micro AND macrocosmic has the flourish of His touch. And that kicks ***.

[starclassic tama]

except that those documents were completely made up by men in an attempt to explain the origins of life because we didn't have the science at the time to understand it. now we do, and thus the controversy.

[TMcGee86]

if you want to take that leap. just know that there is no evidence to back that claim up and realize you are making a distinct leap not based in reality to connect the two to satisfy a personal qualm you might have.

yeah but there is no evidece to back up the origin of the universe on a purely scientific basis, we just know it occured. So to completely discredit one seems a little one sided.

I'd be fine with saying we have no idea why things happened, we just know they did and this is how they seem to be playing out.

That way you are not denying anyone their faith, nor are you forcing anyone to believe in something they don't choose to believe in.

[KABOOKIE]

Small variations over an almost incomprehensible period of time that's evolution. So we have Chimps and we have Humans. What happened to the half-chimp, half-humans? Homo Panzees? What happened to them? And no I'm not talking about San Francisco.

[jkjsooner]

Small variations over an almost incomprehensible period of time that's evolution. So we have Chimps and we have Humans. What happened to the half-chimp, half-humans? Homo Panzees? What happened to them? And no I'm not talking about San Francisco.


We have plenty of fossils of prehistoric man. They've found all sorts of variations along the evolutionary chain.

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

Do you expect them all to still be around?

[NYC Poke]

yeah but there is no evidece to back up the origin of the universe on a purely scientific basis, we just know it occured. So to completely discredit one seems a little one sided.

Or we think we know that it occured.


I'd be fine with saying we have no idea why things happened, we just know they did and this is how they seem to be playing out.

Or we think we know they did.

Ambrosee Bierce once modified Rene Descartes's saying "I think, therefore I am" to read "I think I think, therefore I think I am." Seems about right.

[jkjsooner]

except that those documents were completely made up by men in an attempt to explain the origins of life because we didn't have the science at the time to understand it. now we do, and thus the controversy.

I think there are all sorts of questions in the philosophical realm that can't be explained by science alone - or the explanations I've seen tend to be unsatisfactory to me.

1. Why does anything exist?
2. Why are our natural laws the way they are?
3. How do you explain human perception? And by that I don't mean the physical manifestation of perception (or even the physical interpretation of it in the brain) but the actual perception itself.
4. How do you explain my self identity. If it is simply a manifestation of the physical state of my brain, what if I could replicate that state? Which one would **I** occupy. (I think this thought experiment is valid whether or not the replication could be performed.)

I think there are all sorts of unanswered and unanswerable questions.

[Frozen Sooner]

yeah but there is no evidece to back up the origin of the universe on a purely scientific basis, we just know it occured. So to completely discredit one seems a little one sided.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that there's no scientific evidence backing up that the universe has an origin at all? Or are you specifically dealing with a particular cosmonogy?

'Cause there's a few scientific theories on that flying around, all of which include the observable evidence. The deal now is they're trying to use those theories to predict then observe some other things.

[Vaevictis]

The major problem here is that a lot of people fundamentally don't know how the **** science works or what scientists mean when they're talking.

Example: Theory. I'm going to pull from the Wikipedia Theory entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory), which in turn has pulled from the US National Academy of Sciences:


Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [5]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. [6]

In other words, those of you who are inclined to put forth the argument, "It's just a theory, not a fact," I encourage you to recognize that the word "theory" means something entirely different than what you think it does when used in a scientific context.

With respect to the Science vs. Religion issue:

Never the twain shall meet. Stop trying to mix the two. Give it up.

This means you, super religious person trying to justify your faith by crapping on science. And this means you, super atheist person trying to tear someone's faith down by applying science.

Science and God are mutually exclusive. This is by design. It is what people had in mind when they created science. Science is a discipline which explores the natural world, deliberately eschewing faith.

This is not because the early scientists didn't believe in God; on the contrary, many of them did. They just recognized that superstition and hearth wisdom and all that jazz is often dead fricking wrong and they needed a framework for getting at the truth of the matter.

To this end, in science, only that which is supported by evidence is permitted.

But God requires you to believe in the absence of evidence.

You just can't mix the two. So stop trying.

Ultimately, science may disagree with your faith. But, that's why it's called faith guys. Either believe, or don't. Whether science agrees with it or not doesn't matter.

[Vaevictis]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that there's no scientific evidence backing up that the universe has an origin at all? Or are you specifically dealing with a particular cosmonogy?

'Cause there's a few scientific theories on that flying around, all of which include the observable evidence. The deal now is they're trying to use those theories to predict then observe some other things.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

[starclassic tama]

I think there are all sorts of questions in the philosophical realm that can't be explained by science alone - or the explanations I've seen tend to be unsatisfactory to me.

1. Why does anything exist?
2. Why are our natural laws the way they are?
3. How do you explain human perception? And by that I don't mean the physical manifestation of perception (or even the physical interpretation of it in the brain) but the actual perception itself.
4. How do you explain my self identity. If it is simply a manifestation of the physical state of my brain, what if I could replicate that state? Which one would **I** occupy. (I think this thought experiment is valid whether or not the replication could be performed.)

I think there are all sorts of unanswered and unanswerable questions.

i would argue these questions are arbitrary and irrelevant and not really worth asking. you can ask the marital status of the number 5, but that doesn't mean it's a relevant question.

[jkjsooner]

i would argue these questions are arbitrary and irrelevant and not really worth asking. you can ask the marital status of the number 5, but that doesn't mean it's a relevant question.

Well, your question about the marital status of the number 5 is totally nonsense and makes no sense.

I'll agree with you that questions 1 and 2 could be considered irrelevant.

The other questions I think do matter quite a lot. Sentience or qualia have perplexed me for a long time and any scientific based explanation has been completely lacking and tends to misunderstand the nature what makes it perplexing. Read about the hard problem of consciousness. You will see that Gottfried Leibniz and Albert Einstein were quite perplexed by these problems.

These are much more (to me maybe not anyone else) than asking the marital status of the number 5.

[Fraggle145]

care to cite an example to back up that statement?



thanks. i read a little more into it, and this makes sense. but this is a very very small portion of evolutionary theory, and natural selection is the driving force behind 99% of evolution.

You need to read up on the Neutral theory of molecular biology and more on genetic drift. Also on metapopulation dynamics. There is also sympatric speciation (read up on this!) as seen in african cichlids and in 3 spine sticklebacks. Not to mention sexual selection... All very cool stuff.

[Fraggle145]

Check this out. It's math, and the germans make math so it has to be good.

Belief - Evidence = Faith

A major tenet of religion worldwide. And when you combine something as beautiful as faith with the basic observations of Man and his amazing capacity of discovery, you come to a rather simple conclusion. Faith and science DO go together, just like peanut butter and chocolate. Not to explain away one another, but as reinforcement of one to the other. Faith reinforces the evidence of science as it sheds light on the volumes of intricacies found in the natural world that walk in such a harmonious balance. The evidence of science reinforces my faith because as we discover these intricacies, we discover even more questions as to exactly how our universe works, a theme of many theories but a bearer of infinitesimally few laws, glowing as a reminder that we are not supreme in our bailiwick, we are not gods of our domain.

So to many of us in the 'distinctly leaping' world, there are stacks of evidence to reinforce what we deem as faith WITHIN the stacks of evidence we know as science. And we take them even as folks like yourself stare down condescending noses and scoff at our "personal qualms" that are "not based in reality".

The minute you have the user's manual that covers all the nuts and bolts of what reality is and how it's defined, then maybe you'll have something besides a feeble attempt at down putting what folks see as majesty amidst your facts and figures.

Over the last several years I have mellowed out about this whole thing quite a bit. This is totally plausible/possible simple because of the equation you mentioned: Belief - Evidence = Faith. I just dont subscribe to it that way :D

[JohnnyMack]

Check this out. It's math, and the germans make math so it has to be good.

Belief - Evidence = Faith

A major tenet of religion worldwide. And when you combine something as beautiful as faith with the basic observations of Man and his amazing capacity of discovery, you come to a rather simple conclusion. Faith and science DO go together, just like peanut butter and chocolate. Not to explain away one another, but as reinforcement of one to the other. Faith reinforces the evidence of science as it sheds light on the volumes of intricacies found in the natural world that walk in such a harmonious balance. The evidence of science reinforces my faith because as we discover these intricacies, we discover even more questions as to exactly how our universe works, a theme of many theories but a bearer of infinitesimally few laws, glowing as a reminder that we are not supreme in our bailiwick, we are not gods of our domain.

So to many of us in the 'distinctly leaping' world, there are stacks of evidence to reinforce what we deem as faith WITHIN the stacks of evidence we know as science. And we take them even as folks like yourself stare down condescending noses and scoff at our "personal qualms" that are "not based in reality".

The minute you have the user's manual that covers all the nuts and bolts of what reality is and how it's defined, then maybe you'll have something besides a feeble attempt at down putting what folks see as majesty amidst your facts and figures.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Harry Beanbag]

except that those documents were completely made up by men in an attempt to explain the origins of life because we didn't have the science at the time to understand it. now we do, and thus the controversy.


You're entitled to your opinion, just as long as you realize that 2,000 years from now people will be saying the exact same thing about you.

[Fraggle145]

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

THERE IS NO GOD!! ;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

There is no dog...just an evolved rat!

[soonermix]

THERE IS NO GOD!! ;)

ONLY ZUUL

[Jello Biafra]

haysooz christmas on a stick...where's henry rollins when you need him?

[TMcGee86]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that there's no scientific evidence backing up that the universe has an origin at all? Or are you specifically dealing with a particular cosmonogy?

'Cause there's a few scientific theories on that flying around, all of which include the observable evidence. The deal now is they're trying to use those theories to predict then observe some other things.

No I just mean why the universe came into being. I should have made that more clear.

We think we know how, and we are pretty clear on what has gone on since, but there is nothing on why. And I imagine there wont ever be, that is unless we happen to discover parallel universes, and even then the question would only get broader.

[sooner_born_1960]

can i sign up for this class?
but only a tues/thurs class after noon.

pffft. Light weight.

[JohnnyMack]

No I just mean why the universe came into being. I should have made that more clear.

We think we know how, and we are pretty clear on what has gone on since, but there is nothing on why. And I imagine there wont ever be, that is unless we happen to discover parallel universes, and even then the question would only get broader.

I'm not smart enough to understand what would be on the outside of these stacks or piles of universes or multi-verses. That's what I don't get.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

It was great being an underclassmen. I knew absolutely everything. After all, I had multiple physics, chemistry, and biology classes taught by fellers with PhDs and all. And then I graduated and life kicked me in the nuts.

Lesson 1. Everything requires faith. Just a matter of what you're putting your faith in.

Lesson 2. Alot of the PhD are as full of **** as the preachers.

Lesson 3. If I took everything I "know" and put it into a thimble, there would still be room for an elephants ***.

[starclassic tama]

You're entitled to your opinion, just as long as you realize that 2,000 years from now people will be saying the exact same thing about you.

so in 2,000 years the laws of evolution won't be true anymore?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Here is a good Evolution 101 site.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/darwin_cartoon.gif

[olevetonahill]

I'm about to start my advanced beer drinking class


can i sign up for this class?
but only a tues/thurs class after noon.

Yes But we run the Lab portion from Fri. at 1800 till every one passes the **** out .:D
Oh and Im the Prof.;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

Hell, I study Nightly!

[Fraggle145]

No I just mean why the universe came into being. I should have made that more clear.

We think we know how, and we are pretty clear on what has gone on since, but there is nothing on why. And I imagine there wont ever be, that is unless we happen to discover parallel universes, and even then the question would only get broader.

Hell I'm ****ed up right now...

I think everyone is so hung up on the "why?" questions.

Science doenst give too much of a **** about why? its all about "how?" Those are what I think are a lot more interesting.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So...let me change it up...

How?

[Okla-homey]

here's a question.

As I have always understood it, and at great risk of oversimplification, natural selection is generally the theory that species either adapt to their environment or face extinction. That adaptation occurs over time because only the hardiest and fittest individuals live long enough to reproduce, and in so doing, their DNA survives. Those individuals which are less fit tend to die young and their DNA dies with them, thus, the process insures each successive generation that lives to reproduce will be incrementally superior and more adapted to its environment.

Now, if all that's true, and the whole dealio seems to make sense, might we decide someday that providing assistance to the poor is ultimately counter-productive and that sociopaths, the congenitally disabled and losers should be sterilized in the interest of improving humanity? Or did the lessons of the Holocaust ensure such a thing will never happen again?

[Harry Beanbag]

so in 2,000 years the laws of evolution won't be true anymore?


I have no idea and neither do you. It is safe to say that our understanding of the universe and everything in it should be just as exponentially more complete then compared to now as it is now compared to the time of Christ. Thinking different is just idle hubris.

[Vaevictis]

Now, if all that's true, and the whole dealio seems to make sense, might we decide someday that providing assistance to the poor is ultimately counter-productive and that sociopaths, the congenitally disabled and losers should be sterilized in the interest of improving humanity? Or did the lessons of the Holocaust ensure such a thing will never happen again?

It really just depends on the environment.

We've been selecting less for physical traits and more for mental traits for some time now (IMO), and a lot of the people with the physical advantages but perhaps less mental advantages might be coined "losers" in our current society.

But, if society falls apart and we're back to sticks and stones for some reason, suddenly it's the people with the physical traits back on top again.

(Of course, that's just one environment, I think you can figure out a bunch of alternatives that would select for something other than mental vs. physical -- eg, lessened need for a certain dietary requirement, resistance to certain disease strains, etc.)

[OUDoc]

Now, if all that's true, and the whole dealio seems to make sense, might we decide someday that providing assistance to the poor is ultimately counter-productive and that sociopaths, the congenitally disabled and losers should be sterilized in the interest of improving humanity? Or did the lessons of the Holocaust ensure such a thing will never happen again?
That would be immoral. You are also assuming we know what is the "best" in a society.
Sickle cell isn't a favorable trait in most countries, however, in areas where malaria is endemic, it is favorable. Who decides?

[jkjsooner]

Now, if all that's true, and the whole dealio seems to make sense, might we decide someday that providing assistance to the poor is ultimately counter-productive and that sociopaths, the congenitally disabled and losers should be sterilized in the interest of improving humanity? Or did the lessons of the Holocaust ensure such a thing will never happen again?

I think humans have generally agreed that we have the ability and responsibility to be more compassionate to our fellow humans than simply letting all forms natural selection work its magic. We have an idea that we can't sacrafice the individual for the sake of the whole. (On the political side, that is very ingrained in the American culture.)

Because of our intellectual capacity and our understanding of the world, humans operate with different rules than other species. We could view all of our actions as just being part of nature and therefore no different than the actions of other animals. If we nuke the whole world then, well, that was just part of nature since we are just a creature of nature. But, of course we don't just look at ourselves as a part of nature as we recognize that we have the potential to cause much more disturbances to nature and we're unique in our ability to analyze our impact to nature.

Back to the original idea. I think most ethicists believe that limiting reproduction (which was done back in the early 20th century) is considered unethical except in the most extreme cases. We definitely have to make sure we don't attempt to engineer a better population like the Nazi's. Again, since we are unique in our intelligence if we attempt to engineer the human race most would view that as unnatural selection and not natural selection.

You do have a point. There are certain genetic flaws that we can fix relatively easily. By fixing these flaws, we make it easier for the flawed person to reproduce whereas in the past the person's chance of reproduction would be slim. You could argue that we have removed nature's defense from propogating these bad genes. These are really tough issues from an ethical standpoint.

[jkjsooner]

We've been selecting less for physical traits and more for mental traits for some time now (IMO), and a lot of the people with the physical advantages but perhaps less mental advantages might be coined "losers" in our current society.


While this is definitely still true, I'm not sure society hasn't moved a slight bit back towards physical traits the last 50 or so years. We (including me) idolize our athletic superstars and want to be like them. We are barraged with images of people with desired physical traits and we don't care about their mental abilities.

[Okla-homey]

It really just depends on the environment.

But, if society falls apart and we're back to sticks and stones for some reason, suddenly it's the people with the physical traits back on top again.



especially people who are prone to lard assed-ness. ;)

I read somewhere that heavy folks who have a hard time losing weight are merely the inheritors of a genetic gift that stood their ancient forebears in great stead during times of famine. The skinnies would just die because they had no reserves.

[Frozen Sooner]

here's a question.

As I have always understood it, and at great risk of oversimplification, natural selection is generally the theory that species either adapt to their environment or face extinction. That adaptation occurs over time because only the hardiest and fittest individuals live long enough to reproduce, and in so doing, their DNA survives. Those individuals which are less fit tend to die young and their DNA dies with them, thus, the process insures each successive generation that lives to reproduce will be incrementally superior and more adapted to its environment.

Now, if all that's true, and the whole dealio seems to make sense, might we decide someday that providing assistance to the poor is ultimately counter-productive and that sociopaths, the congenitally disabled and losers should be sterilized in the interest of improving humanity? Or did the lessons of the Holocaust ensure such a thing will never happen again?

Not quite.

Survival of the fittest in darwinian terms is a tautology, for the record. There is no objective standard of fitness other than those who survive.

Anyhow, to address your point, the species who survive are the species that evolve traits that lead to a maximization of gene conservation-that is, the behaviors that tend to lead to greater populations of a genetic pattern.

It is perfectly within the bounds of reason that a species would support herd-increasing measures in times of abundance.

Beyond that, the individuals whose offspring exhibit phenotypes we might consider contra-survival have a vested interest in keeping THEIR genes out there.

Natural selection is not something that should ever be applied to social engineering. It doesn't work that way.

[mdklatt]

Now, if all that's true, and the whole dealio seems to make sense, might we decide someday that providing assistance to the poor is ultimately counter-productive and that sociopaths, the congenitally disabled and losers should be sterilized in the interest of improving humanity?

This is like saying that if you "believe" in gravity you're not allowed to take your kid to the doctor if he falls out of a tree.

[starclassic tama]

I have no idea and neither do you. It is safe to say that our understanding of the universe and everything in it should be just as exponentially more complete then compared to now as it is now compared to the time of Christ. Thinking different is just idle hubris.

not really. even though we have only had the laws of evolution worked out for around 150 or whatever years, they have been holding up since life began on earth, around 3.5 billion years ago. so it's pretty safe to assume they are going to be the same in another 2,000 years. although i agree that our understanding of everything will be even more complete in that time, if we aren't extinct.

[jkjsooner]

This topic spurned an email exchange between me and a relative. Here's a snippet of his response.


There are loads of scientific data disproving the theory, yet scientist continue to promote it as fact. This earth is roughly 6000 years old and every shred of "evidence" supports that theory, yet science chooses to cling to the theory that it is millions of years old.

I bet you guys didn't know that every single bit of (real) evidence supports that the earth is 6000 years old!

I swear, the fundamentalists play the victim card more than any group I know. Everything is a conspiracy against them.

[starclassic tama]

sounds like you've got some inbreeding going on in your family. i'd love to see a single bit of those loads of data

[1890MilesToNorman]

Life began in 1960, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I bet you guys didn't know that every single bit of (real) evidence supports that the earth is 6000 years old!



BS! Olevet's not a day over 4800!

[Fraggle145]

http://oudaily.com/news/2009/apr/02/investigation-raises-censorship-questions/



Investigation raises censorship questions

Will Holland/The Daily

Thursday, April 2, 2009

March 6, the day author and evolution advocate Richard Dawkins spoke at OU, a state representative contacted an OU administrator asking for information about Dawkins’ appearance on campus.

Jay Doyle, university spokesman, confirmed Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-Oklahoma City, asked OU Vice President Danny Hilliard for detailed information about Dawkins’ visit, including how much the event cost, where its funding came from and about e-mails from departments that sponsored the visit.

Hamilton did not respond to repeated phone calls or a visit from The Daily, but some see Hamilton’s questioning as an attempt to attack academic freedom.

“I find it deeply [troubling] that elected state officials appear to be using the powers of their offices to attempt to censor the opinions of those with whom they personally disagree,” Piers Hale, history of science professor, said in an e-mail. “[OU] President [David] Boren has quite correctly pointed out that this is an issue of freedom of speech, and thus of constitutional prerogative.”

Doyle said Boren stands by the statement he made before Dawkins’ speech in support of the appearance at OU.

But State Rep. Todd Thomsen, R-Ada, said he supports Hamilton’s right to ask for information from OU because, as a public institution, OU is subject to government oversight. He said representatives ask for information from other state-funded agencies on a regular basis.

State Rep. Wallace Collins, D-Norman, said this is the first time he has heard of a legislator looking into any speaker a university has invited.

“Certainly, Richard Dawkins had a right to come to OU, and OU had a right to invite him,” Collins said.

He said he thinks OU has an obligation to bring in controversial speakers like Dawkins so students can hear different sides of issues, like evolution, and make up their own minds.

Thomsen said he thinks OU’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, and specifically Dawkins’ invitation, indicated OU was only presenting one side of the evolution debate.

“Not one speaker was brought in to oppose that,” he said.

Collins, however, said OU did host speakers with views opposing Dawkins’.

John West and Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute, a nonprofit organization that advocates the teaching of the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in public schools, spoke at OU in February.

West and Luskin were invited by the IDEA Club, an OU student organization that promotes intelligent design and evolution awareness, said Josh Malone, University College freshman and IDEA Club member.

West and Luskin’s visit was a bit different, though.

The club didn’t receive funding from OU to bring the speakers to campus, Malone said.

Thomsen not only said OU’s speakers were one-sided, but their views were not consistent with those of the state.

Three days before Hamilton’s inquiries, Thomsen proposed House Resolution 1015 in opposition to OU’s invitation of Dawkins. Thomsen said he wrote the resolution because he felt he had a responsibility to his constituents to share his opinion as a state representative.

The resolution was never heard by the House, but Thomsen said that hasn’t stopped criticism.

“I have received quite a bit of opposition from a consistently atheistic crowd worldwide,” he said.

Thomsen said he has been accused of trying to advocate censorship, but said he feels as though he’s the one being censored.

He said his resolution proposal wouldn’t censor anyone but his critics are trying to censor him and others who question evolution.

“It [the proposal] simply says that, you know, we strongly oppose [Dawkins’ appearance at OU],” Thomsen said.

[starclassic tama]

unbelievable. these idiots don't realize that there ISN'T another side to the "issue." it's not a belief system. if there was another theory that existed with any sort of evidence, it would be explored as much as evolution. news flash, it doesn't exist.

[Okla-homey]

Not quite.

Survival of the fittest in darwinian terms is a tautology, for the record. There is no objective standard of fitness other than those who survive.

Anyhow, to address your point, the species who survive are the species that evolve traits that lead to a maximization of gene conservation-that is, the behaviors that tend to lead to greater populations of a genetic pattern.

It is perfectly within the bounds of reason that a species would support herd-increasing measures in times of abundance.

Beyond that, the individuals whose offspring exhibit phenotypes we might consider contra-survival have a vested interest in keeping THEIR genes out there.

Natural selection is not something that should ever be applied to social engineering. It doesn't work that way.

Remember that scene at the egg farm in Napolean Dynamite? "Young feller, I didn't understand a single word you just said.";)

[OUDoc]

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. —C.S. Lewis

[mdklatt]

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. —C.S. Lewis

Hmmm...was this before or after he converted to Christianity?

[jkjsooner]

sounds like you've got some inbreeding going on in your family. i'd love to see a single bit of those loads of data

No, more like brainwashing.

[OUDoc]

Hmmm...was this before or after he converted to Christianity?

I don't know. I noticed it was one of the very few quotes that didn't seem pro-religion.

[47straight]

http://oudaily.com/news/2009/apr/02/investigation-raises-censorship-questions/


If this is what constitutes censorship then we're doing pretty good.

[jkjsooner]

If this is what constitutes censorship then we're doing pretty good.

Criticizing the actions of a representative is never censorship.

A representative pushing a resolution against a speaker is not censorship but being in a government position of power it is a heck of a lot closer to it.

Edit: Again, I'm not saying it is censorship. I'm just saying how idiotic is is that Thomsen is claiming censhorship against himself.

BTW, I fondly remember the days of Thomsen punting for us. Maybe if he would have made it to he NFL we could have been saved from his idiocy.

[Frozen Sooner]

Remember that scene at the egg farm in Napolean Dynamite? "Young feller, I didn't understand a single word you just said.";)

Condensed and simplified:

It is pro-survival to keep as many people of your species alive and reproducing as possible, so long as there's no shortage of necessities.

[Fraggle145]

Condensed and simplified:

It is pro-survival to keep as many people of your species alive and reproducing as possible, so long as there's no shortage of necessities.

Froze, that sounds like group-selection...

Instead of a species promoting herd-increasing it is more likely that individuals will reproduce more often and more successfully during times of plenty. The unit of selection is the individual (or more appropriately the individual gene) not the species, as that distinction is largely artificial.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I like to reproduce.

http://www2.leadingedgecash.com/2/enzyte_01_500x300.jpg

It's fun.

[Frozen Sooner]

Froze, that sounds like group-selection...

Instead of a species promoting herd-increasing it is more likely that individuals will reproduce more often and more successfully during times of plenty. The unit of selection is the individual (or more appropriately the individual gene) not the species, as that distinction is largely artificial.

Just explaining how social darwinism isn't a necessary corrolary of "survival of the fittest."

I mean, it's amusing anyhow, as the artificial population engineering lauded by so-called social darwinists is anything BUT natural selection.

[Fraggle145]

Just explaining how social darwinism isn't a necessary corrolary of "survival of the fittest."

I mean, it's amusing anyhow, as the artificial population engineering lauded by so-called social darwinists is anything BUT natural selection.

I see what you mean now... I was reading, but not paying attn.

[Frozen Sooner]

Not to worry. Were I you and in a thread discussing the various mechanics of evolution and/or biology, I wouldn't pay much attention to what I have to say either. :D