Kenneth Miller- "America's Darwin Problem"

[*Hemidactylus*]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html


"According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
that they "believe in evolution."

Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."

But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.

So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
willing" to contradict?

And here's a howler: "The easier it becomes to depict the scientific
enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the
easier it becomes to reject scientific findings."

Excuse me? How is worrying about the loss of your fan base *not* an
indication that you are "a special interest immersed in the culture wars"?

"Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."

So, if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science.

And then, "Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it
threatens the future of American scientific leadership in an
increasingly competitive world."

So the nationalism card is played. So now belief in evolution is tied to
yet another "special interest immersed in the culture wars". If you
don't believe in evolution, you hate America and want it to be taken
over by what, dark-skinned aliens who speak with accents?

Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.

[TomS]

"On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:20:29 -0700, in article <jh8oj8$v5r$1...@dont-email.me>,
Kalkidas stated..."

>
>On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html
>
>
>"According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
>Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
>that they "believe in evolution."
>
>Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."
>
>But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
>believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
>disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.
>
>So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
>somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
>willing" to contradict?

[...snip...]

I noticed that, too. I took it to be Miller's way of being charitable
to the poor wording of the poll. It has been pointed out enough times
that a lot of people don't "believe in" evolution, but accept the
reality of evolution based on the evidence. People may "believe in"
bimetallism, but they don't "believe in" the periodic table.



--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/12/2012 11:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html
>>
>
>
> "According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
> Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
> that they "believe in evolution."
>
> Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."
>
> But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
> believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
> disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.

Maybe Miller was allowing for self-report bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study

[quote]However participants may not respond truthfully, either because
they cannot remember or because they wish to present themselves in a
socially acceptable manner. Social desirability bias can be a big
problem with self report measures as participants often answer in a way
to portray themselves in a good light.[/quote]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

[quote]"Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults,
aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 6-7, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll
Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national
adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of
sampling error is ą3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for
respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for
respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical
difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the
findings of public opinion polls.[/quote]

I think Miller's nuance here to be justified. But please go on
distorting his views with selective quotes...

> So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
> somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
> willing" to contradict?

Could be a matter of self-reporting bias. see above. Even the Gallup
site mentions bias issue possibilities. Surveys aren't perfect.

> And here's a howler: "The easier it becomes to depict the scientific
> enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the
> easier it becomes to reject scientific findings."
>
> Excuse me? How is worrying about the loss of your fan base *not* an
> indication that you are "a special interest immersed in the culture wars"?

The culture wars are being conduct by the special interests
uncomfortable with the sciences involved, such as evolutionary biology.
Thus depict science in a negative light and you can lead your sheeple
astray from reality. He bemoans the anti-vaccine movement in the rest of
the paragraph you truncated. How is wanting to vaccinate children to
prevent disease a culture war, except when launched in retaliation to
call for preventing the spread of HPV perhaps because right-wingers have
sexual hangups. Wanting to protect people from disease is a notion of
which I am a fan. Maybe you're not. Abstinence might prevent the spread
of HPV. How's that working?

> "Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."
>
> So, if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science.

You hate evolutionary biology which is a science and have a disconnect
with reality.

> And then, "Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it
> threatens the future of American scientific leadership in an
> increasingly competitive world."
>
> So the nationalism card is played. So now belief in evolution is tied to
> yet another "special interest immersed in the culture wars". If you
> don't believe in evolution, you hate America and want it to be taken
> over by what, dark-skinned aliens who speak with accents?

Or "bright, eager, creative students from around the world, taking
places that American students just don't seem interested in filling."

Nice way to spin Miller's concern that the US is falling by the wayside
in the realm of science into implication of racism, especially by your
use of the word nationalism as a lead in. Miller may have been a bit
parochial, but he is critiquing the US, so that's expected.

> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
> the previous paragraph.

There is a group of people against vaccination for various reasons. Most
prominent are those who think there's a link between vaccination and
autism.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/07/p.autism.vaccine.debate/index.html

Then there are those opposed to vaccinating kids against HPV:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/politics/republican-candidates-battle-over-hpv-vaccine.html

> So now we have another "special interest
> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.

He was using the anti-vaccine movement as an example of how people are
swayed away from scientific fact. This was not necessarily connected to
evolutionary biology per se.

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 9:53 AM, TomS wrote:
> "On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:20:29 -0700, in article<jh8oj8$v5r$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Kalkidas stated..."
>>
>> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html
>>
>>
>> "According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
>> Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
>> that they "believe in evolution."
>>
>> Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."
>>
>> But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
>> believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
>> disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.
>>
>> So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
>> somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
>> willing" to contradict?
> [...snip...]
>
> I noticed that, too. I took it to be Miller's way of being charitable
> to the poor wording of the poll. It has been pointed out enough times
> that a lot of people don't "believe in" evolution, but accept the
> reality of evolution based on the evidence. People may "believe in"
> bimetallism, but they don't "believe in" the periodic table.

But do you really think that 40% of the people who responded to the poll
conducted an analysis of the manifold subtle meanings of the word
"believe" before they answered? I rather doubt that even 1% did.

And why didn't Miller say that, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing
to say that they *disbelieve* in evolution? That's an equally likely
inference.

It's because he's trying to craft propaganda to make it look like
believing in evolution is what people would do if they were willing to
have an opinion one way or another, or if they weren't somehow coerced
into silence.

Of course, this kind of double-speak is standard practice for anyone who
is lobbying for a "special interest immersed in the culture wars".

The problem is, Miller pretends that science is not such a special
interest, while simultaneously lobbying for science using cultural
arguments!

(As an aside: I point out to all those on t.o. who are fond of saying
"there is no such thing as 'Darwinism'": in his essay, Miller uses the
term "Darwin problem" and " Darwin rejectionists" freely as synonyms for
anti-evolutionism and anti-evolutionists.)

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/12/2012 11:53 AM, TomS wrote:
> "On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:20:29 -0700, in article<jh8oj8$v5r$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Kalkidas stated..."
>>
>> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html
>>
>>
>> "According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
>> Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
>> that they "believe in evolution."
>>
>> Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."
>>
>> But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
>> believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
>> disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.
>>
>> So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
>> somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
>> willing" to contradict?
> [...snip...]
>
> I noticed that, too. I took it to be Miller's way of being charitable
> to the poor wording of the poll. It has been pointed out enough times
> that a lot of people don't "believe in" evolution, but accept the
> reality of evolution based on the evidence. People may "believe in"
> bimetallism, but they don't "believe in" the periodic table.

Or (me trying to get into Miller's head for using an innocuous word like
willing):

http://tigger.uic.edu/~lwbenn/jacswcourses/socw360/week14.htm

"using self report is often biased by social desirability"

Or more closely linked to the point:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1770/ask-the-expert-pew-research-center

[quote]Q. How many people would say that they believed in God if they
were able to answer with complete anonymity? That is, if they could take
a ballot, check off "yes" or "no" in complete privacy and drop it in a
box. The point of my question is that most people will say they believe
in God in the presence of others when they think that it is the
politically correct answer and, more importantly, that they will be
judged on their answer. Their declaration of belief often has little to
do with their personal convictions and beliefs. Would such a poll put
the lie to the broadly held theory that approximately 80% of Americans
believe in God?

Your question is about what survey researchers call a "social
desirability effect" -- the tendency of respondents in a survey to give
the answer that they think they "should" give or that will cast
themselves in the most favorable light. This is a real issue, one that
we often consider in designing our surveys. Like all reputable polling
organizations, the Pew Research Center safeguards the identity of the
people who take our surveys. Still, you are right that some respondents
may wonder whether their answers are completely confidential, or they
may want to make a favorable impression on the interviewer asking the
questions.

You are also right to think that people might answer certain kinds of
questions more honestly if they could do something akin to dropping a
secret ballot into a box. Research suggests that social desirability
effects are more pronounced in interviewer-administered surveys (such as
the telephone surveys we conduct at Pew) than in self-administered
surveys in which people can fill out a questionnaire (either on paper or
electronically) in complete privacy. For example, research conducted by
the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) shows that
among Catholics, estimates of church attendance (thought to be a
socially desirable behavior) are higher in telephone surveys than in
online surveys.

Several Pew Research Center surveys have included questions about belief
in God, asking respondents "Do you believe in God or a universal
spirit?" In our Religious Landscape Survey, a 2007 telephone survey with
more than 35,000 respondents, 92% answered this question affirmatively.
We have never asked this question on a self-administered survey of the
U.S. population, so we can't say exactly how results for this question
might have been different if respondents had complete privacy and no
interaction with an interviewer. However, in 2008, the Associated Press
and Yahoo! News sponsored a series of online surveys conducted by
Knowledge Networks among a nationally representative panel of Americans.
The June 2008 wave of their poll included the same question about belief
in God, and came up with very similar results (93% said yes, they
believe in God or a universal spirit).

One other point worth noting is that in our Religious Landscape Survey,
after asking respondents whether or not they believe in God or a
universal spirit, we followed up and asked those who said "yes" an
additional question: "How certain are you about this belief? Are you
absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain, or not at all
certain?" Presumably, even if some respondents expressed belief in God
because that's the socially desirable thing to do, there should be more
leeway for people to express doubts after affirming their status as
believers. But in fact, most people express little doubt about God's
existence, with more than 70% of the public saying they believe in God
with absolute certainty.

The bottom line is that yes, you may be right, there could be some
social desirability attached to expressing belief in God. But, even so,
the evidence is strong that a very large majority of the U.S. public
believes in God.

Alan Cooperman, Associate Director, Research and Gregory A. Smith,
Senior Researcher, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life[/quote]

This at least makes "willing to say" more understandable.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

[quote]Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults,
aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 6-7, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll
Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national
adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of
sampling error is ą3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for
respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for
respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical
difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the
findings of public opinion polls.[/quote]

These results came from a telephone survey. What would people be willing
to say for a telephone survey versus something more anonymous?

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> [...]

> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.

It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.

Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bullshit. It's possible Miller was accounting for the effect of social
desirability to bias results of a telephone survey. Or he used "willing"
carelessly or without the significance to attribute.

> Of course, this kind of double-speak is standard practice for anyone who
> is lobbying for a "special interest immersed in the culture wars".
>
> The problem is, Miller pretends that science is not such a special
> interest, while simultaneously lobbying for science using cultural
> arguments!
>
> (As an aside: I point out to all those on t.o. who are fond of saying
> "there is no such thing as 'Darwinism'": in his essay, Miller uses the
> term "Darwin problem" and " Darwin rejectionists" freely as synonyms for
> anti-evolutionism and anti-evolutionists.)
>

I wonder what people would think is more socially desirable to say in a
telephone interview (the Gallup method) versus more anonymous means.
Being questioned on the telephone is somewhat invasive and not anonymous
(they do have your phone number). And what about the effect of other
people in the room listening to the conversation? What if after hanging
up someone's religiously zealous significant other asked them why they
said they believed in evolution and wanted to file for divorce as a
result? I know from first hand experience that discussing evolution to
others can be a socially awkward thing. Ever worse is if someone strikes
up a conversation with me while waiting for a haircut and asks me about
my church and beliefs and being evasive I answer that I'm not religious
(not the bolder answer that I'm atheist) and I'm told I'm going to hell.
Awkward!

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> [...]
>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>
> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>
> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.

How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?

And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
one does yet. It's too early to tell).

But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:58 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html


Dr. Miller impressed me with his ability to speak about the facts and
philosophy of science ever since I first heard him on William
Buckley's Firing Line. His comments in this article are not only
on-topic but relevant to several ongoing discussions. Distrust of the
educated expert, which puts scientists in the same box, is an American
tradition. Skepticism is a healthy thing, but fundamentalist dogma
gets a pass on critical analysis. This country simply can't afford to
be viewed as a collection of anti-science reactionaries.

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:20:29 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html
>
>
>"According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
>Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
>that they "believe in evolution."
>
>Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."
>
>But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
>believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
>disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.
>
>So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
>somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
>willing" to contradict?

That's a stretch, even for you. In order to provide an answer, the
respondents had to be willing to reply, by definition.

>And here's a howler: "The easier it becomes to depict the scientific
>enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the
>easier it becomes to reject scientific findings."
>
>Excuse me? How is worrying about the loss of your fan base *not* an
>indication that you are "a special interest immersed in the culture wars"?
>
>"Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."
>
>So, if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science.

Pretty much, yeah. Just like if you don't believe in 4+ billion years
of natural history on a moving Earth. Of course, it's not a matter of
belief but material evidence.

>And then, "Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it
>threatens the future of American scientific leadership in an
>increasingly competitive world."
>
>So the nationalism card is played. So now belief in evolution is tied to
>yet another "special interest immersed in the culture wars". If you
>don't believe in evolution, you hate America and want it to be taken
>over by what, dark-skinned aliens who speak with accents?
>
>Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.

Works for me.

[Kalkidas]

"It's possible..." What is that? Anything's possible. But Miller
doesn't say any of what you're saying. He just cites a poll as if he
considers it accurate. And if, as you claim, there are so many problems
with polls of this type, why would Miller knowing cite it as if it was
accurate? That, too, would be misleading rhetoric, not to mention
unscientific.

No. The poll is accurate. Miller spins the interpretation (actually he
misstates one of the explicit conclusions of the poll) to suit his own
agenda to make Darwinism look like the only rational choice, which
people would agree with if only they were "willing" (i.e. not coerced).

This is S.O.P for all lobbyists and political activists. Why should it
irritate you when someone points it out?

[Ron O]

On Feb 12, 11:45 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
> >> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
> >> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
> >> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> >> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>
> > It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
> > California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
> > When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
> > booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>
> > Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?

Zero. No link between vaccination and autism were ever verified. You
have a nonstarter here.

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

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

You are making a mountain out of a molehill here. I think the point that
telephone surveys can introduce a bit of self-report bias into the
results is reason enough to use an otherwise innocuous phrase "willing
to say". Maybe that was Miller's intent. All you are doing is misleading
with rhetoric and projecting that on Miller, by distorting what he's
saying. You are, after all, an activist lobbying for creation are you not?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:27:23 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

Since the facts are clear about the history of life on earth, those who
reject evolution are doing so because they have not been educated
properly. Partly, the problem is poor science education because we don't
respect science in this country and foolishly allow teachers who are
ignorant about science to teach science. Partly the problem comes from
the false doctrines preached by some denominations which reject reality
for their own delusional claims.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/12/2012 12:45 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>
>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>
> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
> one does yet. It's too early to tell).

Need a ladder for that hole you're digging yourself into?

> But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
> political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
> the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
> special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.

At what point is Miller being a nationalist? You pretty much accused him
of racism, though I cleared that up by providing a quote for what Miller
actually said:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e2e63792cc7db296

Kalkidas insinuating racism on Miller's part: [quote] And then, "Our

Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it
threatens the future of American scientific leadership in an
increasingly competitive world."

So the nationalism card is played. So now belief in evolution is tied to
yet another "special interest immersed in the culture wars". If you
don't believe in evolution, you hate America and want it to be taken

over by what, dark-skinned aliens who speak with accents? [/quote]

versus what Miller actually said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html

[quote]Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it threatens

the future of American scientific leadership in an increasingly

competitive world. Convince enough young Americans that science is a
close-minded system with a particular cultural and political agenda, and
we will cede leadership to emerging countries that don't share our
Darwin hang-ups, and see science as the wave of the future. If you doubt
this is happening today, look at the graduate programs of America's
research universities, still the greatest in the world. Increasingly,
they are filled with bright, eager, creative students from around the

world, taking places that American students just don't seem interested

in filling. Once trained, they will become the scientists of the future,
while more and more of our own students have been persuaded that science
has nothing to offer them. If this doesn't change, scientific discovery
will increasingly become something that happens elsewhere. [/quote]

Note the vast difference between "dark-skinned aliens who speak with
accents" and "bright, eager, creative students from around the world,

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:45:51 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

>On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>
>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
>How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?

Zero.

>And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
>law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
>one does yet. It's too early to tell).

Zero. There is absolutely no correlation nor is there any mechanism that
would show that vaccinations cause autism.

>But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
>political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
>the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
>special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.

You lie about science.

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 10:54 AM, Ron O wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:45 am, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>
>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>>
>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>
> Zero. No link between vaccination and autism were ever verified. You
> have a nonstarter here.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism
>
> Ron Okimoto

I'm not on any anti-vaccination bandwagon. Nor am I anti-science.

But what seems to have happened is, the inflated reputation of science,
caused many people to implicitly trust the findings of what was later
revealed to be a fraudulent *scientific study*.

They shouldn't have been so trusting. Science's reputation was
definitely overblown in that case. And there are other such cases.

But as long as Miller and other propagandists tell people that science
is the *only* reliable epistemology, we'll continue to have those problems.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/12/12 10:45 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>
>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?

None. Vaccines don't cause autism.

>
> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
> one does yet. It's too early to tell).

The number is zero. Children don't become autistic due to vaccines.

>
> But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
> political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
> the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
> special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.
>

Saving lives may be a "special interest" but I don't see why it would be
a bad thing.


DJT

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:19:20 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

>On 2/12/2012 10:54 AM, Ron O wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 11:45 am, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>>
>>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>>
>>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>>>
>>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>>
>> Zero. No link between vaccination and autism were ever verified. You
>> have a nonstarter here.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>I'm not on any anti-vaccination bandwagon. Nor am I anti-science.

So why do you bring up the claims of these folks? They are clearly
anti-science and they are clearly misleading the public.

>But what seems to have happened is, the inflated reputation of science,
>caused many people to implicitly trust the findings of what was later
>revealed to be a fraudulent *scientific study*.

It was not scientific. There were questions from day one from the
scientific community about that alleged study. It turned out that indeed
the whole story was a con written for the purpose of making money. The
people who bought Wakefield's story were already predisposed to ignore
the evidence that other scientists had already gathered.

>They shouldn't have been so trusting. Science's reputation was
>definitely overblown in that case. And there are other such cases.

They were ignoring all of the other evidence to listen to Wakefield.
That is not being trusting, that is being delusional.

>But as long as Miller and other propagandists tell people that science
>is the *only* reliable epistemology, we'll continue to have those problems.

What other ways do you propose?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yet wasn't science itself at play in showing the alleged link between
vaccination and autism was mistaken (putting it mildly)? Again we have
problems in other fields like HIV research where deniers exist and
people think science shows they are right in thinking that HIV doesn't
cause AIDS.

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

[quote]Several scientists have been associated with AIDS denialism,
although they have not themselves studied AIDS or HIV.[9] One of the
most famous and influential is Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular
and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who since
1987 has disputed that the scientific evidence shows that HIV causes
AIDS.[21] Other scientists associated with AIDS denialism include
biochemists David Rasnick and Harvey Bialy. Kary Mullis, who was awarded
a Nobel Prize for his role in the development of PCR, has expressed
sympathy for denialist theories.[45] Biologist Lynn Margulis has argued
that "there's no evidence that HIV is an infectious virus" and that AIDS
symptoms "overlap...completely" with those of syphilis.[46][quote]

[Kalkidas]

Not really. I'm lobbying for an ontology. That's all I ever do on t.o.
The ontology of modern science is drastically incomplete. Until the
situation is rectified, science will never provide anything like a
complete and consistent description of reality.

But most people are not looking for reality. They are after something else.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/12/12 10:51 AM, jillery wrote:
snip

>>
>> "Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."
>>
>> So, if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science.
>
>
> Pretty much, yeah. Just like if you don't believe in 4+ billion years
> of natural history on a moving Earth. Of course, it's not a matter of
> belief but material evidence.
>
>

Evolution deniers don't actually "hate science". They love science,
as long as it's something that they see as a benefit to them. They only
object to parts of science that conflict with their personal beliefs.

In the same way, gangsters don't hate law and order, as long as it's
a benefit to them. It's only a few parts of the law that bother them,
the parts that complicate their "business".

An organized crime figure certainly enjoys the same protection of his
property law enforcement provides that law abiding citizens do.
Evolution deniers likewise benefit from the technology that science
makes possible. By and large, you don't see creationists rejecting the
fruits that the study of evolution has given society.

Evolution deniers want a special dispensation for their feelings, and
beliefs from science. They don't want science telling them that God
doesn't exist. Even though evolution doesn't actually do this, to many
people, that's what they think when they hear "evolution". They equate
it with "atheism" and an attack on religious beliefs.

While the findings of science do contradict particular religious
beliefs, science itself does not oppose religion. I think most people
accept on some level that the Earth is very old, and that scientific
findings are correct regarding the history of life. However, on the
personal level, the idea that humans are not the pinnacle of creation
can be disturbing.

The point is that those who deny evolution are not really "anti
science", but they are wanting is exemption for humans from the fact
that life evolves. They want to keep their religious beliefs intact,
without having to question God's existence. Of course, science doesn't
allow for such a exemption. It follows the evidence, and particular
religious beliefs are not spared. To some, this is equivalent to
advocating atheism. They are wrong, of course.

Putting acceptance of science on the terms of science versus religion
doesn't help matters.

DJT

[Kalkidas]

That's another popular phrase from fear-mongering special interest
lobbyists, "saving lives".

It's really a load of crap. Miller's article is supposed to be about
Darwinism (he freely uses the terms "Darwin problem" and "Darwin
rejectionists"). Darwinism never saved any lives, never saved any
children, never saved any country. Darwinism isn't science, and Miller
ought to be ashamed of himself for conflating the two.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:45:19 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

Darwin's discovery was essential to our modern understanding of biology.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Evolution is at play in the ability of microbes to become resistant to
antibiotics and other treatments. An understanding of this may keep
doctors from overprescribing antibiotics especially in cases where they
are useless, like treating the common cold. And we understand the
connection between disease pathogens that cause malaria and the presence
of the sickle cell trait. It may not help in the how to treat sickle
cell category but at least gives us a notion as to why it exists. And
knowing the biological connection between model organisms and humans and
how commonalities and diversities can impact the usefulness of these
model organisms for understanding human medical biology seems a
reasonable application of evolution.

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

[Burkhard]

On Feb 12, 5:45 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
> >> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
> >> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
> >> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> >> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>
> > It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
> > California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
> > When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
> > booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>
> > Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?

None, since the connection between autism and vaccination is about as
sound as that between shape of your skull and your character

[*Hemidactylus*]

I've heard ontology recapitulates philology. Is this true?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/12/2012 01:49 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:45 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>
>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>>
>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>
> None, since the connection between autism and vaccination is about as
> sound as that between shape of your skull and your character

But the phrenologists were onto something (if in the wrong
methodologically) if functions are localized in the brain (vs. Lashley's
mass action) or there are evolved cognitive modules (ev psych). But
those who used skin galvanometers were just as on to something, that you
can measure something superficially (head knobs or skin response) and
gain psychological insight. Both approaches failed in the long run,
though galvanometers gave the researcher more of a purchase than head
bumps.

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:45:51 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>
>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
>How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>
>And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
>law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
>one does yet. It's too early to tell).

Which means, of course, you don't know either. So why even ask the
question?

But I'd put my money on the number being closer to zero than any other
number you imagine it to be.

[Kalkidas]

I think they're in a feedback loop.

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 11:49 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:45 pm, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>
>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>>
>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>
> None, since the connection between autism and vaccination is about as
> sound as that between shape of your skull and your character

"Dude, that's my skull!"

-Jeff Spiccoli in Fast Times At Ridgemont High

[Richard Harter]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:27:23 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

[snip sundry vitriolic nastiness]

>The problem is, Miller pretends that science is not such a special
>interest, while simultaneously lobbying for science using cultural
>arguments!

On its face this is a non-sequitur; how one argues for something does
not define what it is. However there is an interesting issue here.

Enduring cultural activities all have common elements, conditioned by
the requirement of enduring. Science as a cultural activity is a
special interest with rather special characteristics. The interests
of science are scientific truth which is to say reliable verifiable
knowledge, the economic and cultural support of the pursuit of
scientific truth, and the existence of institutions that facilitate
the pursuit of scientific truth.

The thing that makes science special as a cultural activity is that
its focus is on scientific truth which, again, is reliable verifiable
knowledge. This is quite different from most of the other players in
the culture wars. The various religions peddle received truth which
is unverifiable but can be beleived in without question. The
anti-global-warming flacks serve the commercial interests of the
fossil fuel industry. The cranks and crackpots profit on nostrums.
Etc.

In short, for all of the players in the culture wars except science,
truth is an ideological choice, conditioned by the needs of the
players. Science is at a disadvantage in this competition.

Bertrand Russell once explained mathematics in the university thusly.
Young men come to the university to study mathematics so that they may
become university professors teaching mathematics to the next
generation. Every so often mathematics is useful in war, which pays
for the whole thing.

There you have it. Science is accepted by the powers that be because
it is profitable, a cornucopia of technological fruits. It is much
less acceptable when it inconveniences the economic, religious, and
political powers that be. As for the public, it believes whatever it
is sold by whoever is best at getting its ear.

[Kalkidas]

Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all traits
of all species that ever lived on earth.

In other words, Darwinism is a philosophical paradigm, a worldview. And
he says that disbelief in the worldview is causing all sorts of troubles
of a cultural and political nature.

And he ties belief in the worldview to support for America and America's
cultural values, and disbelief in it to subversion of those things.

Is this kind of talk really going to help science's reputation? Or is it
going to get people to fear that incorrect beliefs may get them in
trouble with the Department of Homeland Security?

[Robert Camp]

On Feb 12, 8:20 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>

> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b...

>
> "According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
> Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
> that they "believe in evolution."
>
> Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."
>
> But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
> believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
> disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.
>
> So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
> somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
> willing" to contradict?
>

> And here's a howler: "The easier it becomes to depict the scientific
> enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the
> easier it becomes to reject scientific findings."
>
> Excuse me? How is worrying about the loss of your fan base *not* an

> indication that you are "a special interest immersed in the culture wars"?

>
> "Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."
>

> So, if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science.

>
> And then, "Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it
> threatens the future of American scientific leadership in an
> increasingly competitive world."
>
> So the nationalism card is played. So now belief in evolution is tied to
> yet another "special interest immersed in the culture wars". If you
> don't believe in evolution, you hate America and want it to be taken
> over by what, dark-skinned aliens who speak with accents?
>

> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.

Miller says - "...the easier it becomes to reject scientific
findings."
Kalkidas spins - "...worrying about the loss of your fan base..."

M. says - "Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."
K. spins - "...if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science."

M. says - "...it threatens the future of American scientific

leadership in an increasingly competitive world."

K. says - "If you don't believe in evolution, you hate America..."

Nice job knocking the stuffing out of those straw men. If you ever get
tired of religious proselytizing, you have a promising future in
politics.

RLC

[Arkalen]

(2012/02/13 4:13), jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:45:51 -0700, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>>
>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>>
>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>>
>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>>
>> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
>> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
>> one does yet. It's too early to tell).
>
>
> Which means, of course, you don't know either. So why even ask the
> question?
>
> But I'd put my money on the number being closer to zero than any other
> number you imagine it to be.

There is abundant scientific evidence that whooping cough kills babies.
There is also abundant scientific evidence that vaccines prevent
whooping cough. There is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause
autism... and people have looked. There is also evidence that autism has
causes that are different from vaccines.

So actually we can be fairly confident that that number actually is
zero. And we can be virtually certain that that number is orders of
magnitude lower than the number of people suffering from and dying from
vaccinable diseases.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:45:51 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:

> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:

<snip>

>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?

Zero.

"The MMR vaccine controversy was a case of scientific misconduct which
triggered a health scare. It followed the publication in 1998 of a paper
in the medical journal The Lancet which presented apparent evidence that
autism spectrum disorders could be caused by the MMR vaccine, an
immunization against measles, mumps and rubella.[1]

"Investigations by Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer revealed that the
lead author of the article, Andrew Wakefield, had multiple undeclared
conflicts of interest,[2][3] had manipulated evidence,[4] and had broken
other ethical codes. The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004 and
fully retracted in 2010, and Wakefield was found guilty by the General
Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 and was
struck off the Medical Register, meaning he could no longer practice as a
doctor.[5] The research was declared fraudulent in 2011 by the BMJ.[6]
The scientific consensus is that no evidence links the vaccine to the
development of autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh
its risks."

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

>
> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
> one does yet. It's too early to tell).

Zero.

Just because you don't keep up with this literature doesn't mean the
literature doesn't exist.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html

>
>
> "According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
> Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
> that they "believe in evolution."
>
> Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."
>
> But the poll didn't ask people if they were "*willing to say*" that they
> believed in evolution, it asked if they believed in evolution,
> disbelieved in it, or had no opinion *either way*.
>
> So what, is Miller implying that the ones who answered "no opinion" were
> somehow coerced into silence by anti-evolutionists whom they were "not
> willing" to contradict?

No.

But clearly, some were willing to say to the polling organisation that
they believed in evolution, and they did so. And some others were
not.

[Ron O]

Says the certified IDiot that is still an IDiot when the bait and
switch has been going down for a decade.

I rest my case on Kalk.

Ron Okimoto

[Garamond Lethe]

And this particular literature is even easier to find than I thought.

1. "Because the incidence of autism among 2 to 5 year olds increased
markedly among boys born in each year separately from 1988 to 1993 while
MMR vaccine coverage was over 95% for successive annual birth cohorts,
the data provide evidence that no correlation exists between the
prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of
autism over time."

James A Kaye et al., "Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the
incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend
analysis", BMJ. 2001 February 24; 322(7284): 460–463.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26561/



2. "We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of
atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the
diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International
Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214 [82%] core autism,
52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's syndrome). There was a
steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden "step-up" or
change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There
was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before
or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no
temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after
vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period
0·94 [95% CI 0·60­1·47] and 1·09 [0·79­1·52]). Developmental regression was
not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within
2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 0·92 [0·38­2·21] and 1·00 [0·52­
1·95]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental
concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the
exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This
appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining
precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.

"Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and
autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be
identified in this large regional sample."

Brent Taylor et al., "Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no
epidemiological evidence for a causal association", The Lancet, Volume
353, Number 9169, 12 June 1999.
http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/nolinkmmr.htm


3. "Of the 537,303 children in the cohort (representing 2,129,864 person-
years), 440,655 (82.0 percent) had received the MMR vaccine. We
identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 422
with a diagnosis of other autistic-spectrum disorders. After adjustment
for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the
group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group,
was 0.92 ... and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder
was 0.83 .... There was no association between the age at the time of
vaccination, the tme since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and
the development of autistic disorder.

"This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR
vaccination causes autism."

Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen et al., "A Population-based Study of Measles,
Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism", N Engl J Med 2002;
347:1477-82.
http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/20021107.pdf


Finding these was a easy as putting <autism vaccination> into
scholar.google.com.

This isn't new: 2001, 1999 and 2002, respectively.

But it's not what you wish you believe, thus it can't exist....

[Will in New Haven]

What they are telling people is _correct_ Certainly, science isn't
infallible but everything else is guessing or an astronomy-like
fraud.

--
Will in New Haven

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:


[snip]

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
>
> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all traits
> of all species that ever lived on earth.

Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain that I
understand your position:

Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do not
have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
somewhat like a rat?


--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/12/2012 03:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
>>
>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all traits
>> of all species that ever lived on earth.
>
> Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain that I
> understand your position:
>
> Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do not
> have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
> somewhat like a rat?

What he is saying seems to be against the accepted wisdom of our
resident Paleyian immutabilist, which makes Kalkidas a wolf in sheep's
clothing out to help us atheists rape the bible and also put Kalkidas
into that putative atheist category alongside Pags and Nyikos. These are
troubling times, when Pags and Kalkidas will burn alongside us in Hell
for eternity.

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 1:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
>>
>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all traits
>> of all species that ever lived on earth.
>
> Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain that I
> understand your position:
>
> Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do not
> have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
> somewhat like a rat?

I'm far more certain we didn't have such an ancestor than you are that
we did.

[Burkhard]

Just hope your toes are still tapping :o)

[Garamond Lethe]

But you were also certain that we couldn't know how many cases of autism
were prevented by failing to immunize children.

As my Baptist pastor told me many years ago, sincerity is a poor measure
of truth.

So, *why* are you certain? The two most common answers are certainty as
a result of faith (which isn't persuasive to people who don't share that
faith) and certainty as a result of personal incredulity (which isn't
persuasive to people who know more than you do).

Do you have a better third option?

[jillery]

Thank you for making my point more clearly than I did.

[Kalkidas]

Robert Camp doesn't explain what Miller meant if he didn't mean what I
translated him to mean.

Is Robert Camp claiming that a bad reputation is not correlated with a
loss of supporters, both financial and emotional? And is the group of
people who support an enterprise financially and emotionally not
accurately called a "fan base"?

Is Robert Camp claiming that Miller is unconcerned with the reputation
of science, and doesn't care whether science loses financial and
emotional supporters?

> M. says - "Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."
> K. spins - "...if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science."

Robert Camp doesn't explain what Miller meant if he didn't mean what I
translated him to mean.

Is Robert Camp denying that Miller thinks disbelief in Darwinism is
correlated with an anti-science attitude in general? And is "hatred of
science" not synonymous with "an anti-science attitude"?

> M. says - "...it threatens the future of American scientific
> leadership in an increasingly competitive world."
> K. says - "If you don't believe in evolution, you hate America..."

Robert Camp doesn't explain what Miller meant if he didn't mean what I
translated him to mean.

Is Robert Camp denying that Miller is appealing to a feeling of
"American solidarity", i.e. nationalism?

> Nice job knocking the stuffing out of those straw men. If you ever get
> tired of religious proselytizing, you have a promising future in
> politics.

Is Robert Camp claiming that disagreeing about the importance of
Darwinism in science is synonymous with "religious proselytizing"?

[jillery]

If only certainty was the proper metric for veracity.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/12/12 11:45 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 11:15 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:

>> On 2/12/12 10:45 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> [...]

>>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh
>>>>> wait,
>>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>>>

>>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>>>
>>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>>

>> None. Vaccines don't cause autism.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
>>> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
>>> one does yet. It's too early to tell).
>>

>> The number is zero. Children don't become autistic due to vaccines.
>>
>>>

>>> But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
>>> political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
>>> the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
>>> special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.
>>>
>>

>> Saving lives may be a "special interest" but I don't see why it would be
>> a bad thing.
>
> That's another popular phrase from fear-mongering special interest
> lobbyists, "saving lives".

Vaccines do save lives. I, and probably 50% of the respondents here
probably would not have survived childhood without vaccines. I'm glad
I was born after an effective vaccine for polio was developed.

>
> It's really a load of crap. Miller's article is supposed to be about
> Darwinism (he freely uses the terms "Darwin problem" and "Darwin
> rejectionists"). Darwinism never saved any lives, never saved any
> children, never saved any country.

Science (which includes evolutionary theory) has saved many lives. My
brother survived leukemia, partly due to treatments developed through
the study of evolution.

> Darwinism isn't science, and Miller
> ought to be ashamed of himself for conflating the two.

That depends on what you are calling "Darwinism". If you mean
"evolutionary theory", then you are wrong, as it's part of science. If
you mean "Darwinism" any science that contradicts religious dogma, that
too is incorrect. I'm not sure what "Darwinism" you don't think is
science.



DJT




>

[Dana Tweedy]

Evolution at a "micro" scale is the same as evolution that explains how
species developed. You can't accept one, and reject the other.

>
> In other words, Darwinism is a philosophical paradigm, a worldview. And
> he says that disbelief in the worldview is causing all sorts of troubles
> of a cultural and political nature.

This is where you are wrong. Evolution is not a "philosophical
paradigm", it's just a scientific theory. The "worldview" you are
opposing is not just evolution but the basic idea that evidence means
something. Rejection of that "worldview" does cause all sorts of
trouble, as people think that answers to scientific questions are just a
matter of opinion.

Reality doesn't care what political position you hold, or what answer
is politically expedient. Answers are determined by what the evidence
shows, not what one wants to believe.

>
> And he ties belief in the worldview to support for America and America's
> cultural values, and disbelief in it to subversion of those things.

Disbelief in the view that evidence is what matters may make one feel
better, but it's not going to cut it in a technological age that we live
in. I can wish all I want, but that doesn't mean nature is going to
stop acting the way it does.

>
> Is this kind of talk really going to help science's reputation? Or is it
> going to get people to fear that incorrect beliefs may get them in
> trouble with the Department of Homeland Security?

That depends. Is one's "incorrect belief" a threat to public health and
safety? Disagreeing on a matter of politics isn't going to provide a
pool for disease, like opposing vaccinations does.


DJT

[Burkhard]

On Feb 12, 6:37 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 01:34 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/12/2012 10:58 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> On 02/12/2012 12:55 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> On 2/12/2012 10:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>> On 02/12/2012 12:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/12/2012 9:53 AM, TomS wrote:
> >>>>>> "On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:20:29 -0700, in

> >>>>>> article<jh8oj8$v5...@dont-email.me>,

> >>>>>> Kalkidas stated..."
>
> >>>>>>> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> >>>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b...

No, you misheard, It is oncology recapitulates philanthropy. It's
about charitable giving to cancer research, I think

[Frank J]

On Feb 12, 12:51 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:58 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b...
>
> Dr. Miller impressed me with his ability to speak about the facts and
> philosophy of science ever since I first heard him on William
> Buckley's Firing Line.  His comments in this article are not only
> on-topic but relevant to several ongoing discussions.  Distrust of the
> educated expert, which puts scientists in the same box, is an American
> tradition.  Skepticism is a healthy thing, but fundamentalist dogma
> gets a pass on critical analysis.  This country simply can't afford to
> be viewed as a collection of anti-science reactionaries.

I saw him 3 years ago today. There was standing room only in the
auditorium for his main talk, and there were no hecklers. That's the
good news. The bad news was that, even though the audience was rich in
science students and professors, when he asked how many people had
heard of the chromosome fusion in our lineage, only ~1/4 raised their
hands.

[Burkhard]

I doubt that even the most hard core adaptionist would subscribe to a
statement as stupid and obviously false as that

[Bruce Stephens]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> writes:

[...]

> But what seems to have happened is, the inflated reputation of
> science, caused many people to implicitly trust the findings of what
> was later revealed to be a fraudulent *scientific study*.

Kind of. But there wasn't that much claimed science in the first
place. what seems to have happened was a doctor with good PR skills
found journalists (not science or health journalists, for the most part)
willing to write about a controversy (which wasn't much of a
controversy, but that never seems to bother journalists). And about a
generation of parents hadn't really seen the diseases that vaccines had
prevented (I'm slightly too old for MMR and I don't remember hearing of
anybody my age having serious problems from one of the common childhood
diseases but then I was a child (I remember hearing of children who
ended up in hospital, but that's it)).

> They shouldn't have been so trusting. Science's reputation was
> definitely overblown in that case. And there are other such cases.

Cases where there was a real scientific story or some crackpot with
their own story to sell?

> But as long as Miller and other propagandists tell people that science
> is the *only* reliable epistemology, we'll continue to have those
> problems.

How would you resolve whether vaccination is sensible or not? Seems to
me that epidemiology is rather a good way to study it.

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2012-02-12 16:10, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 1:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
>>>
>>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all traits
>>> of all species that ever lived on earth.
>>
>> Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain that I
>> understand your position:

.

>> Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do not
>> have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
>> somewhat like a rat?
>
> I'm far more certain we didn't have such an ancestor than you are that
> we did.

If as you appear to be saying you are certain beyond any possibility of
doubt that (for example) rats and people do not have a common biological
ancestor then how do you get rid of the evidence?

For example:
Can you tell me how I should explain the fact that ALL vertebrates
(mammals, birds, reptiles, fish) have an inverted retina, but NO other
group of animals (Crustaceans, Insects, Molluscs [includes octopus]) has
this characteristic?

Note this example is a single (extremely simple) instance of the nested
hierarchy.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <ptidnTkRKvz-naXS...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Note the vast difference between "dark-skinned aliens who speak with
> accents" and "bright, eager, creative students from around the world,
> taking places that American students just don't seem interested in
> filling".

The American see scientist pay being lower than other paths that require
less work in school and thus gravitate away from science. Being a
science major doesn't get you money or girls so why bother? Even
traditionally science in America has traditionally been a path up for
minorities and immigrants .

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Frank J]

> Darwinism in science is synonymous with "religious proselytizing"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pagano envy?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <eqWdncxdU4lhq6XS...@giganews.com>,

Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Vaccines do save lives. I, and probably 50% of the respondents here
> probably would not have survived childhood without vaccines. I'm glad
> I was born after an effective vaccine for polio was developed.

I think your estimate is rather large. I was probably immunized against
smallpox, but not measles or mumps and polio only when I was in junior
high at least. Everybody got measles and mumps when I was young and
nearly everybody survived.

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 4:37 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-02-12 16:10, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 1:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
>>>>
>>>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>>>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>>>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all
>>>> traits
>>>> of all species that ever lived on earth.
>>>
>>> Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain that I
>>> understand your position:
>
> .
>
>>> Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do not
>>> have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
>>> somewhat like a rat?
>>
>> I'm far more certain we didn't have such an ancestor than you are that
>> we did.
>
> If as you appear to be saying you are certain beyond any possibility of
> doubt that (for example) rats and people do not have a common biological
> ancestor then how do you get rid of the evidence?

I don't recall ever making a blanket denial of common ancestry. I do
contest the general notion that reproduction is "progressive", starting
from simple and stupid and progressing to complex and smart.

You could say I'm a devolutionist. I believe in devolutionary biology.

As for "getting rid of evidence", I have no desire to do that.

> For example:
> Can you tell me how I should explain the fact that ALL vertebrates
> (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish) have an inverted retina, but NO other
> group of animals (Crustaceans, Insects, Molluscs [includes octopus]) has
> this characteristic?

If it is a fact, you should explain it as a fact, obviously.

> Note this example is a single (extremely simple) instance of the nested
> hierarchy.

Do tell.

[Frank J]

On Feb 12, 11:20 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b...
>
> "According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
> Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say
> that they "believe in evolution."
>
> Notice the nuance: "...*willing to say* that they believe in evolution."

While I don't like it, Miller is clearly using the colloquial "believe
in" to mean "accept," rather than expend more words trying to explain
it. Nevertheless, I agree that there are many people who privately
accept evolution who are not willing to admit:

http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious/singlepage


(snip)

[Earle Jones]

In article <01vfj7t27l1lva9ss...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:58 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

> <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191
> >.html

>
>
> Dr. Miller impressed me with his ability to speak about the facts and
> philosophy of science ever since I first heard him on William
> Buckley's Firing Line. His comments in this article are not only
> on-topic but relevant to several ongoing discussions. Distrust of the
> educated expert, which puts scientists in the same box, is an American
> tradition. Skepticism is a healthy thing, but fundamentalist dogma
> gets a pass on critical analysis. This country simply can't afford to
> be viewed as a collection of anti-science reactionaries.

*
Even if it's true?

earle
*

[Kalkidas]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
news:ba4ee589-3524-4494...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 12, 7:34 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

[snip]

>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all
>> traits of all species that ever lived on earth.
>
> I doubt that even the most hard core adaptionist would subscribe to a
> statement as stupid and obviously false as that

I doubt your doubt. If some traits of some species didn't come via
evolutionary processes, then they're not the result of natural selection
operating on genetic variations.

So if those exceptions cover only a tiny minority of traits, then the
exceptions certainly prove the general rule of Darwinism as I portrayed
it. But if those exceptions cover a large number of traits, then
something is very wrong with the Darwinian paradigm.

[Kalkidas]

Sure. Who cares about truth? We're talking about science! Isn't it
better to look right than to be right?

Science must look like it's winning even if it's losing. That's P.R. 101.

[jillery]

Especially if its true. I would like to figure out what it is that
drives people away from reason and into the false comfort of
irrationality. And then I would like to drive a very large wooden
stake into the heart of it.

[Friar Broccoli]

So putting that together your position would be then that rats and
people both descended from a common ancestor that had all the
characteristics of both humans and rats (as well as others)?

If not precisely what does: "I'm far more certain we didn't have such an
ancestor than you are that we did." mean in practical terms?

> As for "getting rid of evidence", I have no desire to do that.
>
>> For example:
>> Can you tell me how I should explain the fact that ALL vertebrates
>> (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish) have an inverted retina, but NO other
>> group of animals (Crustaceans, Insects, Molluscs [includes octopus]) has
>> this characteristic?
>
> If it is a fact, you should explain it as a fact, obviously.

Is this not evidence that the inverted retina was a characteristic of an
ancestor which all vertebrates have inherited? If it is not evidence of
a common ancestor, do you think it happened by pure chance or by Design
or what?

>> Note this example is a single (extremely simple) instance of the nested
>> hierarchy.
>
> Do tell.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Science doesn't lose in the pursuit of truth, but it might lose the PR
battle due to ignorant populace (or popular ignorance).

[Walter Bushell]

In article <earle.jones-3934...@news.giganews.com>,

Especially if it's true.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:17:17 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

You have made it quite clear that you don't give a damn about being
honest or learning.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 12, 1:45 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 11:15 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/12/12 10:45 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>> [...]

> >>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh
> >>>> wait,
> >>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
> >>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
> >>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> >>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>

> >>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
> >>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
> >>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
> >>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>
> >>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
> >> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>
> > None. Vaccines don't cause autism.
>
> >> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
> >> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
> >> one does yet. It's too early to tell).
>
> > The number is zero. Children don't become autistic due to vaccines.
>
> >> But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
> >> political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
> >> the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
> >> special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.
>
> > Saving lives may be a "special interest" but I don't see why it would be
> > a bad thing.
>
> That's another popular phrase from fear-mongering special interest
> lobbyists, "saving lives".
>
> It's really a load of crap. Miller's article is supposed to be about
> Darwinism (he freely uses the terms "Darwin problem" and "Darwin
> rejectionists"). Darwinism never saved any lives, never saved any
> children, never saved any country. Darwinism isn't science, and Miller
> ought to be ashamed of himself for conflating the two.

Would you please define "Darwinism"? What do you think it is?

Do you mean natural selection?

If so, I don't think I can present a case where natural selection
saved human lives.

However, an understanding of natural selection has led to some rather
significant insights into human health problems. The one that springs
to mind, of course, is why sickle-cell disease...a really horrible
genetic disorder...is so prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, when pure
selective pressures would predict it to be much rarer than it is (like
many other inherited disorders). The answer, of course, is that
heterozygotes for the sickle-cell trait are more resistant to malaria-
one of the worst diseases in the world- than people homozygous for
normal adult hemoglobin.

Would you argue that this insight is worthless?

And again, would you please define "Darwinism"?

Thanks,

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Feb 12, 7:34 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

Well jeez, you're living proof of that!

Sorry, but that was just too good a straight line to ignore.

Chris

[Robert Camp]

He meant what he said,

"Our Darwin problem is really a science problem. The easier it becomes

to depict the scientific enterprise as a special interest immersed in
the culture wars, the easier it becomes to reject scientific findings.

We see this everywhere in American culture and politics today, from
the anti-vaccine movement to the repeated assertion that global
warming is a deliberate "hoax" rather than a straightforward
conclusion driven by reams of scientific data. Sometimes this is done
for deliberate political reasons, to secure advantage for a particular
industry or financial group, but just as often it is motivated by fear
of the implications of what science has discovered or might discover
in the future."

...which was that once science is cast as ideological, even tribal, by
those who've religious and political reasons for doing so (read
"Merchants of Doubt," by Oreskes and Conway for a closer look at this
process) a rationale is provided whereby the uninformed targets of
their propaganda can, will, and do conclude that the scientific
enterprise is untrustworthy. This results in a rejection of knowledge
and an impoverishment of the national character.

> Is Robert Camp claiming that a bad reputation is not correlated with a
> loss of supporters, both financial and emotional?

No, I'm claiming that the kind of loss engendered by a partisan
tarnishing of science is something beyond bruised egos and fleeting
allegiances, as implied by your pejorative trope, "fan base."

> And is the group of
> people who support an enterprise financially and emotionally not
> accurately called a "fan base"?

Sure, to the degree the group of people who support any particular
religion may be referred to as a fan base, I suppose.

> Is Robert Camp claiming that Miller is unconcerned with the reputation
> of science, and doesn't care whether science loses financial and
> emotional supporters?

Here's a clue: when you respond to a complaint about creating straw
men with another huge misrepresentation it only makes you look petty.
Well, that or wildly oblivious. In neither case does it redound to
your advantage.

> > M. says - "Our Darwin problem is really a science problem."
> > K. spins - "...if you don't believe in evolution, you hate science."
>
> Robert Camp doesn't explain what Miller meant if he didn't mean what I
> translated him to mean.

As before, Miller means what he says: that the problem is bigger than
just creationist assaults on evolutionary biology, and if not
addressed will likely result in a broader spectrum of trouble for
science in general.

> Is Robert Camp denying that Miller thinks disbelief in Darwinism is
> correlated with an anti-science attitude in general?

Of course I'm not denying it. Neither am I affirming it. Miller didn't
address the issue (though he did note that it was correlated with
political perspectives).

I don't know what Miller believes, but if he's like me he suspects
that the mindset which predisposes some individuals to dismiss
evolution may well be fertile ground for other forms of science
denialism. This is neither appropriately labeled "hating science" or
"anti-science." These individuals, for the most part, respect and
employ science in most aspects of their lives, rejecting particular
findings that don't comport with their self-referrential certainty.

> And is "hatred of
> science" not synonymous with "an anti-science attitude"?

Possibly, though neither was implied by Miller's words.

> > M. says - "...it threatens the future of American scientific
> > leadership in an increasingly competitive world."
> > K. says - "If you don't believe in evolution, you hate America..."
>
> Robert Camp doesn't explain what Miller meant if he didn't mean what I
> translated him to mean.

Really? Seriously?

He means what he says,

"Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it threatens the
future of American scientific leadership in an increasingly

competitive world. Convince enough young Americans that science is a
close-minded system with a particular cultural and political agenda,
and we will cede leadership to emerging countries that don't share our
Darwin hang-ups, and see science as the wave of the future."

The worst one could suggest is that he lays on the "American
exceptionalism" business a bit thick here, but considering his goals
and intended audience I'd say that's forgivable (though I wouldn't
argue the point).

> Is Robert Camp denying that Miller is appealing to a feeling of
> "American solidarity", i.e. nationalism?

Obviously not. And just as obviously there was not the slightest
implication, either in his words or the above massive retreat from
your original "translation," that if one doesn't believe in evolution
one "hates America."

> > Nice job knocking the stuffing out of those straw men. If you ever get
> > tired of religious proselytizing, you have a promising future in
> > politics.
>
> Is Robert Camp claiming that disagreeing about the importance of
> Darwinism in science is synonymous with "religious proselytizing"?

Golly, another cunning gloss on my comments. Maybe I was wrong about
you being good enough at this to get a job in politics.

RLC

[James Beck]

Good one. Had to read it twice.

[RAM]

On Feb 12, 7:17 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 5:49 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article<01vfj7t27l1lva9ssrfblia9tl0qcf7...@4ax.com>,
> >   jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:58 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

> >> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b...

> >>> .html
>
> >> Dr. Miller impressed me with his ability to speak about the facts and
> >> philosophy of science ever since I first heard him on William
> >> Buckley's Firing Line.  His comments in this article are not only
> >> on-topic but relevant to several ongoing discussions.  Distrust of the
> >> educated expert, which puts scientists in the same box, is an American
> >> tradition.  Skepticism is a healthy thing, but fundamentalist dogma
> >> gets a pass on critical analysis.  This country simply can't afford to
> >> be viewed as a collection of anti-science reactionaries.
>
> > *
> > Even if it's true?
>
> Sure. Who cares about truth?

Scientists do. However, their truth is conditional and totally
dependent upon empirical evidence.

Your ontology is all about empty verbage and the distortions you bring
to science. Your ontology is otiose and has no evidentiary support.
It is all about empty unsupported assertions about how conventional
science is limited by its assumptions and as you write below by its
attempt to "look right." You provide no evidence but a stereotype
provided by anti-science evolution deniers and/or scientifically
ignorant Christianists and rigid religious ideologues such as
yourself.

We're talking about science! Isn't it
> better to look right than to be right?

Your snottiness is indicative of a profound ignorance of the practice
of science. The fact is that overwhelmingly all scientist do concern
themselves with following fairly rigid methodological procedures to
"look right." This is what most scientists consider to be right.
Doing so makes it almost impossible to so called "look right" since
the research outcome is from empirical data that severely limits
interpretations. These methodological practices preclude systematic
data distortions unless one manufactures i.e. "fakes" the data.

The reason for "faked data" is that most scientific theories and their
derived hypotheses have a long history of evidentiary support from
previous "non-faked" data. If you have ever done empirical research
you would know it is difficult in the extreme to even subtly distort
evidence since conventions, previous research and the raw data limit
as well as inform interpretation of empirical results and then peer
review takes a fresh set of critical eyes to see if the evidence
stands up to the interpretation provided by the researcher(s). Most
non-faked data distortion comes from measurement error and this is
hard to create for outcomes you want and getting the biased
distortions you clearly imply in your snotty scientifically uninformed
and juvenile comments.

Faked data has obviously occurred in science. What little data that
are faked by scientists are most often caught by other scientists
because it is a competitive model of social organization and you get
major recognition for finding and documenting bad methods (e.g.
measurement error), faked data and distorted interpretations due to
uninformed use of research tools etc.

Your snotty comments imply of course you think that 95% of all science
research is "faked!" to look right. Or that scientist are primarily
concerned about sending the public a particular message. None are
even remotely true.

Science is as competitive as any sport but the prestige gained for
success is mostly about gaining status(with the hope of some economic
future reward) as a scientist and not an attempt to "look right" to
the public.

>
> Science must look like it's winning even if it's losing. That's P.R. 101.

Your ignorance arrogance is often demonstrated and it is here again.
Winning and losing is not part of the science competitive model. The
competitive model is about what others view as a major breakthrough in
scientific understanding. Science is about pushing forward
knowledge most often in small unrecognized steps and then some bright
researcher(s) ties it together and produces a "magnum opus" that
changes the direction of how the discipline thinks about their
dominant/prevailing theories/hypotheses. Your P. R. concerns are only
about stereotyping science. If I'm wrong, then I'm sure you can
provide non-anecdotal evidence for that claim for biology, geology,
physics and computer science.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/12/12 9:45 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> [...]

>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>

>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>
>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>
> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?

Zero. Vaccination does not cause autism, period.

> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
> one does yet. It's too early to tell).

Bullshit. The answer is zero. The only connection between vaccination
and autism is anti-science fraud by the moral and effectual equivalent
of mass murderers.

> But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
> political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
> the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
> special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.

So you prefer publicity campaigns to put children at risk of deadly
diseases over publicity campaigns to gain knowledge that is almost sure
to have long-term benefits to society?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Burkhard]

On Feb 13, 1:02 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote innews:ba4ee589-3524-4494...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Feb 12, 7:34 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
> >> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
> >> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all
> >> traits of all species that ever lived on earth.
>
> > I doubt that even the most hard core adaptionist would subscribe to a
> > statement as stupid and obviously false  as that
>
> I doubt your doubt.

I don't doubt that you doubt my doubts, that;s because you belief in a
purely fictinal version of the ToE that is not held by working
biuologists

>If some traits of some species didn't come via
> evolutionary processes, then they're not the result of natural selection
> operating on genetic variations.

Indeed they are not. Every heard for drift or neutral evolution? Let
alone all the epigenetic traits a species might display?

>
> So if those exceptions cover only a tiny minority of traits, then the
> exceptions certainly prove the general rule of Darwinism as I portrayed
> it. But if those exceptions cover a large number of traits, then
> something is very wrong with the Darwinian paradigm.

That would be the case if Darwinism were a metaphysical doctrine
aiming for completeness in the way metaphysical doctrines tend to do.
Since it isn't, but just an ordinary scientific theory, the opposite
is the case. A small number of exceptions woudl be a problem, as it
would require at best ad hoc changes to the theory, at worst it
could be seen as a falsification. However, realising a a theory
evolves that its domain is more restricted, in a systematic way, than
originally thought, or that more than one theories are needed to
explain a specific set of phenomena, is just par for the course for a
scientific theory.

That's what happened with Netwonian mechanics when it transpired that
very small objects don't adhere to the theory. One apple flying
upwards: bad news. An entire field of phenomena and objects that was
prima facie a candidate for explanation, but requires a totally
different approach after all: progress.

[Arkalen]

On 13/02/12 11:32, Burkhard wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:02 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote innews:ba4ee589-3524-4494...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 7:34 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>>>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>>>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all
>>>> traits of all species that ever lived on earth.
>>
>>> I doubt that even the most hard core adaptionist would subscribe to a
>>> statement as stupid and obviously false as that
>>
>> I doubt your doubt.
>
> I don't doubt that you doubt my doubts, that;s because you belief in a
> purely fictinal version of the ToE that is not held by working
> biuologists
>
>> If some traits of some species didn't come via
>> evolutionary processes, then they're not the result of natural selection
>> operating on genetic variations.
>
> Indeed they are not. Every heard for drift or neutral evolution? Let
> alone all the epigenetic traits a species might display?

Creationists are very good at not making the distinction between the
process of natural selection+random mutation (usually what's referred to
with "Darwinian processes" if not "Darwinism" AFAICT), adaptation,
common descent, the theory of evolution overall, and abiogenesis.
They're even less good at understanding that a whole lot of those
different things are *independent* of each other.

It might be related to how they see their religion as an indivisible
whole which stands or falls as a single unit... without realizing that
not only is this logically untrue, it isn't even true in practice, as we
can see with the great diversity in what Christians believe.

This is some basic paradigm stuff, and it's really about plain logic.
I'm not sure how we can best make people understand that the theory of
evolution doesn't work that way (other, of course, than simply saying
"the theory of evolution doesn't work that way")

>>
>> So if those exceptions cover only a tiny minority of traits, then the
>> exceptions certainly prove the general rule of Darwinism as I portrayed
>> it. But if those exceptions cover a large number of traits, then
>> something is very wrong with the Darwinian paradigm.
>
> That would be the case if Darwinism were a metaphysical doctrine
> aiming for completeness in the way metaphysical doctrines tend to do.
> Since it isn't, but just an ordinary scientific theory, the opposite
> is the case. A small number of exceptions woudl be a problem, as it
> would require at best ad hoc changes to the theory, at worst it
> could be seen as a falsification. However, realising a a theory
> evolves that its domain is more restricted, in a systematic way, than
> originally thought, or that more than one theories are needed to
> explain a specific set of phenomena, is just par for the course for a
> scientific theory.
>
> That's what happened with Netwonian mechanics when it transpired that
> very small objects don't adhere to the theory. One apple flying
> upwards: bad news. An entire field of phenomena and objects that was
> prima facie a candidate for explanation, but requires a totally
> different approach after all: progress.
>

--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus

[Steven L.]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:jh8u63$3gu$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2/12/2012 10:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > On 02/12/2012 12:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2012 9:53 AM, TomS wrote:
> >>> "On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:20:29 -0700, in

> >>> article<jh8oj8$v5r$1...@dont-email.me>,

> >>> Kalkidas stated..."
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/12/2012 8:20 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> >>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html

Here's the original poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

And it states its survey method as follows:

"Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults,
aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 6-7, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll
Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national
adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of
sampling error is ą3 percentage points.

"Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for
respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for
respondents who are cell-phone only)."

Any poll is subject to error. But that's why Gallup and other pollsters
employ statisticians. If the statisticians' analysis is that +/- 2
standard deviations represents +/- 3 percentage points in the results,
then that means that there's only a 5% chance that the results are
further off than +/- 3 percentage points. If this were a normal
distribution, then there's less than a 1% chance that the results are
further off than +/- 5 percentage points.

So one thing we can say for sure is that the public is divided on this
issue, without a clear majority either way.


-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:9dvfj7tvc1cm3uq52...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:27:23 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
> talk.origins:
>

> >Of course, this kind of double-speak is standard practice for anyone who
> >is lobbying for a "special interest immersed in the culture wars".
> >
> >The problem is, Miller pretends that science is not such a special
> >interest, while simultaneously lobbying for science using cultural
> >arguments!
> >
> >(As an aside: I point out to all those on t.o. who are fond of saying
> >"there is no such thing as 'Darwinism'": in his essay, Miller uses the
> >term "Darwin problem" and " Darwin rejectionists" freely as synonyms for
> >anti-evolutionism and anti-evolutionists.)
>
> Since the facts are clear about the history of life on earth, those who
> reject evolution are doing so because they have not been educated
> properly.

That's NOT what the poll implies.

There are more data that Miller didn't mention:

There was a strong negative correlation between frequency of church
attendance and acceptance of evolution.

Among those who attend church weekly, only 24% accepted evolution as
valid.
Among those who attend church monthly, 30% accepted evolution as valid.
Among those who never attend church, 55% accepted evolution as valid.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

The problem isn't poor education in the sense you mean it. The problem
is the widespread belief that evolution undercuts religion.

And public school teachers can't address THAT subject directly--by
suggesting to students an interpretation of Christianity that is
compatible with evolution--because it would represent just as big a
violation of the Establishment Clause as teaching creationism.

This problem can only be addressed by scientific popularizers like
Miller and Giberson.



-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message

news:jh8vi1$cjj$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2/12/2012 10:54 AM, Ron O wrote:

> > On Feb 12, 11:45 am, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh wait,
> >>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
> >>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
> >>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> >>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
> >>
> >>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
> >>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
> >>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
> >>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
> >>
> >>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
> >>
> >> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
> >

> > Zero. No link between vaccination and autism were ever verified. You
> > have a nonstarter here.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> I'm not on any anti-vaccination bandwagon. Nor am I anti-science.

>
> But what seems to have happened is, the inflated reputation of science,
> caused many people to implicitly trust the findings of what was later
> revealed to be a fraudulent *scientific study*.
>

> They shouldn't have been so trusting. Science's reputation was
> definitely overblown in that case. And there are other such cases.
>

> But as long as Miller and other propagandists tell people that science
> is the *only* reliable epistemology, we'll continue to have those problems.

Miller is a devout Catholic. He would never say that science is the
only reliable epistemology for telling you how to live your life or what
moral choices you should make or whether you should accept the
supernatural. Heck, he believes not only in God, but in all the
Biblical miracles.

Miller simply says that science is the most reliable epistemology for
understanding the physical universe. And he's right about that. What
other way is better?

In the final analysis, you would act that way too. If you were running
a fever and had signs of sepsis, you would go to a doctor for
antimicrobial drugs rather than study the Ramayana or the Mahabharata,
right?

The Vatican has documented a few hundred divine miracles. These are
rare; one such miracle seems to appear every 50 years on average.

But scientific medicine has saved millions of lives every year
(including my own).

When I was recovering from my own surgery, I noted another patient in a
room next to my own. He had inoperable lung cancer--the tumor could not
be extirpated from the lung. That would have been a death sentence 40
years ago. But in 2011, they just removed his entire lung and replaced
it with a healthy transplanted lung. Truly miraculous!




-- Steven L.

[jillery]

If a public school teacher were to say something like "X is an
interpretation of Christianity which is consistent with evolution",
you have a valid point. However, if a public school teacher were to
say something like "evolution is consistent with many religious
interpretations" and leave it as an exercise for the students to
figure out which ones, would that violate the Establishment clause as
well? If not, ISTM that statement would also honestly and accurately
answer the issue being raised.

[RMcBane]

What you are saying is true to an extent, but the poll clearly shows
that those with higher education accept evolution in greater numbers.

"Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have
no opinion than are those who have more formal education. Still, among
those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on
Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they
believe in it. For all other groups, and in particular those who have at
least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief."

One has to wonder if high school teachers are spending much if any time
on evolution or if they often pass over it as they know that it is a
controversial subject and don't wish to deal with parents complaining
about what is being taught to their kids.

It is also possible that as students move on to college students are
going to be less influenced by their parents opinions.

I also wonder if there is also a correlation between higher education
and those that seldom or never attend church.


--
Richard McBane

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Feb 13, 12:27 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <eqWdncxdU4lhq6XSnZ2dnUVZ5uWdn...@giganews.com>,

>  Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vaccines do save lives.  I, and probably 50% of the respondents here
> > probably would not have survived childhood without vaccines.   I'm glad
> > I was born after an effective vaccine for polio was developed.
>
> I think your estimate is rather large. I was probably immunized against
> smallpox, but not measles or mumps and polio only when I was in junior
> high at least. Everybody got measles and mumps when I was young and
> nearly everybody survived.

I think I got the polio one, and BCG for tuberculosis. And maybe
others that are given to infants as no-brainer decisions so they
aren't discussed. And evidently I benefitted from other people's
vaccinations in that they didn't get various diseases to pass on to
me. And there are still horrible death tolls in the Third World. But
I agree that >50% non-survival is rather a high estimate for the
cohort of talk.origins participants in 2012. Certainly most people in
the Third World don't own a computer, so they don't show up here even
if they do survive. So they count less in that particular statistic.

I also suffered and survived one or more of the diseases that are now
vaccinated for.

[Steven L.]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message

news:jh93ts$clq$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> > On 02/12/2012 01:45 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2012 11:15 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> >>> On 2/12/12 10:45 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh
> >>>>>> wait,
> >>>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine
> >>>>>> movement" in
> >>>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
> >>>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
> >>>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
> >>>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
> >>>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
> >>>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
> >>>>
> >>>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
> >>>

> >>> None. Vaccines don't cause autism.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>

> >>>> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of
> >>>> the
> >>>> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
> >>>> one does yet. It's too early to tell).
> >>>

> >>> The number is zero. Children don't become autistic due to vaccines.
> >>>
> >>>>

> >>>> But the point is, nationalism, child-welfare, etc., are the tactics of
> >>>> political animals who are lobbying for "special interests immersed in
> >>>> the culture wars." Miller clearly wishes to deny that science is such a
> >>>> special interest, yet he engages in all those tactics.
> >>>>
> >>>

> >>> Saving lives may be a "special interest" but I don't see why it would be
> >>> a bad thing.
> >>
> >> That's another popular phrase from fear-mongering special interest
> >> lobbyists, "saving lives".
> >>
> >> It's really a load of crap. Miller's article is supposed to be about
> >> Darwinism (he freely uses the terms "Darwin problem" and "Darwin
> >> rejectionists"). Darwinism never saved any lives, never saved any
> >> children, never saved any country. Darwinism isn't science, and Miller
> >> ought to be ashamed of himself for conflating the two.
> >>

> > Evolution is at play in the ability of microbes to become resistant to
> > antibiotics and other treatments. An understanding of this may keep
> > doctors from overprescribing antibiotics especially in cases where they
> > are useless, like treating the common cold. And we understand the
> > connection between disease pathogens that cause malaria and the presence
> > of the sickle cell trait. It may not help in the how to treat sickle
> > cell category but at least gives us a notion as to why it exists. And
> > knowing the biological connection between model organisms and humans and
> > how commonalities and diversities can impact the usefulness of these
> > model organisms for understanding human medical biology seems a
> > reasonable application of evolution.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine

>
> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all traits
> of all species that ever lived on earth.
>

> In other words, Darwinism is a philosophical paradigm, a worldview. And
> he says that disbelief in the worldview is causing all sorts of troubles
> of a cultural and political nature.
>
> And he ties belief in the worldview to support for America and America's
> cultural values, and disbelief in it to subversion of those things.

I read the article, and that's not what he said.



> Is this kind of talk really going to help science's reputation? Or is it
> going to get people to fear that incorrect beliefs may get them in
> trouble with the Department of Homeland Security?

It depends whom you're talking about.

Miller is trying to appeal to an American audience, many of whom might
care about the future of their country.

Creationists--and you--have made the argument that "Darwinism" is
wrecking civilization.
Miller was trying to say that the theory of evolution is just another
part of science, and that science doesn't wreck civilizations, our
modern civilization is built on science.

You just proved his point, with your attack on vaccination as allegedly
causing autism. That fear--unsupported by modern scientific
findings--might discourage a parent from immunizing her child against
diphtheria, whooping cough or polio, any of which can be disabling or
even deadly.

The world population has now reached 7 billion, suggesting that the
average life expectancy has drastically increased from what it was 200
years ago. Science made that possible.



-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message

news:jh99ki$pe0$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 2/12/2012 1:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:

> > On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >

> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
> >>
> >> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
> >> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
> >> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all traits
> >> of all species that ever lived on earth.
> >

> > Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain that I
> > understand your position:
> >

> > Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do not
> > have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
> > somewhat like a rat?
>
> I'm far more certain we didn't have such an ancestor than you are that
> we did.

Why are you so certain of that?

It's one thing to say that you don't find the evidence for such ancestry
as conclusive.
But to say you're sure it did NOT happen?



-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message

news:jh9lih$gn0$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2/12/2012 4:37 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:

> > On 2012-02-12 16:10, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2012 1:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>> On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
> >>>>
> >>>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
> >>>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
> >>>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all
> >>>> traits
> >>>> of all species that ever lived on earth.
> >>>
> >>> Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain that I
> >>> understand your position:
> >

> > .

> >
> >>> Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do not
> >>> have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
> >>> somewhat like a rat?
> >>
> >> I'm far more certain we didn't have such an ancestor than you are that
> >> we did.
> >

> > If as you appear to be saying you are certain beyond any possibility of
> > doubt that (for example) rats and people do not have a common biological
> > ancestor then how do you get rid of the evidence?
>
> I don't recall ever making a blanket denial of common ancestry. I do
> contest the general notion that reproduction is "progressive", starting
> from simple and stupid and progressing to complex and smart.

Strawman.

Yes, that used to be the way that evolution was taught--"The Ascent of
Man" type stuff.

In modern evolutionary theory, there is no "progression" implied, just
adaptation to whatever the environmental circumstances happen to be at a
given time.




-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3cb492eb-01b6-4a52...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:

I'm the last generation to get the smallpox vaccine as routine--the one
where they scratch cowpox into your upper arm. Did you get that one?
They stopped giving it in 1972.

And I'm sure you and I got the DPT (diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus), as
well as tetanus boosters when we needed them.

OTOH, I was born long before they had vaccines for measles, chicken pox,
mumps and German measles. I caught the first three of those diseases,
but recovered each time.




-- Steven L.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <YqydnfRV264zkqTS...@earthlink.com>,

Ah, yes. I survived chicken pox as well as measles and mumps. It was
expected and IIRC everybody got them. I'm sure my smallpox immunization
is out of date.

Measles, mumps, chicken pox were killers in populations that didn't have
a history of exposure. Later white mans food would spread havoc
throughout the world. The American Indians got some revenge with tobacco
and corn where people tried to live solely on corn ended up going crazy
from pellagra.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <mdGdna7JpNuXnKTS...@earthlink.com>,

I suppose you could have a very Calvinistic form of Christianity where
some people are predestined to be saved and other predestined to be
damned. There is so little room for any free will in the scientific
paradigm.

I seem predestined to believe I have free will, even though the evidence
is overwhelming that all my thinking is materially determined.

>
> This problem can only be addressed by scientific popularizers like
> Miller and Giberson.
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.

[Rolf]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 1:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
>>>
>>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all
>>> traits of all species that ever lived on earth.
>>
>> Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain
>> that I understand your position:
>>

>> Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do
>> not have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that
>> looked somewhat like a rat?
>
> I'm far more certain we didn't have such an ancestor than you are that
> we did.

Could you be a little more specific? Don't you believe in ancestry 65 mi
years ago at all?

Do you have any opinion at all (besides being "certain we didn't have such
an ancestor") about the subject of "human ancestry at 65 million years ago"?

[Frank J]

On Feb 12, 8:17 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 5:49 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<01vfj7t27l1lva9ssrfblia9tl0qcf7...@4ax.com>,
> >   jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:58 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> >> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b...
> >>> .html
>
> >> Dr. Miller impressed me with his ability to speak about the facts and
> >> philosophy of science ever since I first heard him on William
> >> Buckley's Firing Line.  His comments in this article are not only
> >> on-topic but relevant to several ongoing discussions.  Distrust of the
> >> educated expert, which puts scientists in the same box, is an American
> >> tradition.  Skepticism is a healthy thing, but fundamentalist dogma
> >> gets a pass on critical analysis.  This country simply can't afford to
> >> be viewed as a collection of anti-science reactionaries.
>
> > *
> > Even if it's true?
>

> Sure. Who cares about truth? We're talking about science! Isn't it

> better to look right than to be right?
>

> Science must look like it's winning even if it's losing. That's P.R. 101.

Whereas you are PROJECTION 101

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/12/12 11:36 AM, Arkalen wrote:
> (2012/02/13 4:13), jillery wrote:

>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:45:51 -0700, Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/2012 10:28 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/12 8:20 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Can I guess that "it's for the children" will pop up somewhere? Oh
>>>>> wait,
>>>>> I almost missed the reference to an alleged "anti-vaccine movement" in
>>>>> the previous paragraph. So now we have another "special interest
>>>>> immersed in the culture wars". If you don't believe in evolution, you
>>>>> hate children and want them to die of horrible diseases.
>>>>
>>>> It's not alleged; I have seen the anti-vaccine movement myself. In
>>>> California, ten children died, needlessly, of whooping cough in 2010.
>>>> When that movement died down a bit, and new laws were passed mandating
>>>> booster vaccination, zero people died of whooping cough in 2011.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, an anti-science attitude kills.
>>>
>>> How many children avoided autism as a result of not being vaccinated?
>>>

>>> And more important, how many children did become autistic because of the
>>> law that was passed? (Please don't claim that you know the answer. No
>>> one does yet. It's too early to tell).
>>
>>

>> Which means, of course, you don't know either. So why even ask the
>> question?
>>
>> But I'd put my money on the number being closer to zero than any other
>> number you imagine it to be.
>
> There is abundant scientific evidence that whooping cough kills babies.
> There is also abundant scientific evidence that vaccines prevent
> whooping cough. There is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause
> autism... and people have looked.

There is scientific evidence that vaccines do *not* cause autism.
Simply measure autism rates among similar populations who have had and
not had vaccines.

[Kalkidas]

On 2/12/2012 6:24 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-02-12 19:34, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 2/12/2012 4:37 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:

>>> On 2012-02-12 16:10, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2012 1:40 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-02-12 14:34, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/2012 11:55 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those examples of micro-evolution are OK. But micro-evolution is not
>>>>>> what Miller means when he says "evolution" in the article. He means
>>>>>> Darwinism, which is an alleged explanation of the *origin* of all
>>>>>> traits
>>>>>> of all species that ever lived on earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I have not followed your posts, I would like to be certain
>>>>> that I
>>>>> understand your position:
>>>

>>> .

>>>
>>>>> Are you saying (for example) that you are certain that you and I do
>>>>> not
>>>>> have an ancestor from about sixty-five million years ago that looked
>>>>> somewhat like a rat?
>>>>
>>>> I'm far more certain we didn't have such an ancestor than you are that
>>>> we did.
>>>

>>> If as you appear to be saying you are certain beyond any possibility of
>>> doubt that (for example) rats and people do not have a common biological
>>> ancestor then how do you get rid of the evidence?
>>
>> I don't recall ever making a blanket denial of common ancestry. I do
>> contest the general notion that reproduction is "progressive", starting
>> from simple and stupid and progressing to complex and smart.
>>

>> You could say I'm a devolutionist. I believe in devolutionary biology.
>

> So putting that together your position would be then that rats and
> people both descended from a common ancestor that had all the
> characteristics of both humans and rats (as well as others)?

Depends what you mean by "characteristics". If you're thinking of some
horrid monstrosity that looks like a rat-lizard-fish-bird-something or
other, no I'm not talking about such a thing.

What I'm talking about is a primordial "ancestor" who was endowed with
the complete genetic information necessary to produce all types of
organisms in their archetypal, or prototype, forms. These forms in turn
reproduced their own type, which gradually degraded through loss and
mutation of genetic information, until we see the present state of
affairs -- a lot of defects, diseases, and relatively short, miserable
lifespans.

I am as certain of this as you are of Darwinian evolution.

> If not precisely what does: "I'm far more certain we didn't have such an
> ancestor than you are that we did." mean in practical terms?

>
>
>> As for "getting rid of evidence", I have no desire to do that.
>>
>>> For example:
>>> Can you tell me how I should explain the fact that ALL vertebrates
>>> (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish) have an inverted retina, but NO other
>>> group of animals (Crustaceans, Insects, Molluscs [includes octopus]) has
>>> this characteristic?
>>
>> If it is a fact, you should explain it as a fact, obviously.
>

> Is this not evidence that the inverted retina was a characteristic of an
> ancestor which all vertebrates have inherited? If it is not evidence of
> a common ancestor, do you think it happened by pure chance or by Design
> or what?


That vertebrates have such a retina is a fact. That they acquired such a
retina through Darwinian evolution is speculation. The difference should
be clearly stated in presentations of biology.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:58 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html

In year 1959 there was a biology symposium titled "100 Years
Without Darwin is [are] Enough." Aldous Leonard Huxley gave one of
the keynote talks at the conference, and if I recall correctky so
did Hermann J. Muller. S. J. Gould later wrote an essay on the
subject.

Maybe I can digitalize the audio tapes, and post the talks to the
Internet. I have a cassette player around here somewhere.


--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[Kalkidas]

So, Miller "means what he says"? This is obviously false. Miller means

what he means, not what he says. Otherwise he wouldn't have said:

"According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of
Charles Darwin's birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say

that they 'believe in evolution.'"

Which is both false and misleading. Of course, he could have *meant* to
be false and misleading, in which case I suppose he really *did* mean
what he said.

But I'm sure Robert Camp doesn't think Miller meant to be false and
misleading. He reserves that accusation for Kalkidas.

[Kalkidas]

Believers in God are a dime a dozen. Anyone can say they believe in God.
It's especially easy when the "God" you believe in stays far away in
some isolated "heaven" and doesn't interfere much or at all with the
material universe which the "believer" is so fond of exploiting for his
own gratification and self-aggrandizement.

> Miller simply says that science is the most reliable epistemology for
> understanding the physical universe. And he's right about that. What
> other way is better?

You mean "exploiting" rather than "understanding", don't you? Because
physical science is definitely at the bottom of the list of
epistemologies which lead to "understanding" the physical universe.

Try "understanding" the physical universe using quantum theory, which,
by its First Postulate, supposedly gives a complete description of a
physical system.

Yes, that's right. Quantum theory claims that the state vector of a
physical system is a complete description of that system, and contains
absolutely everything that can possibly be known about it.

And nobody, no physicist in the entire world, "understands" Quantum
Theory. All they can do is use it to exploit the physical universe for
their own purposes. No "understanding" beyond their craven lust for
power and control is necessary.

[Kalkidas]

Except that I didn't say "random mutation". I said "genetic variation",
which is what modern day "neo-Darwinism" calls it. All the things
Burkhard mentions fall within the purview of "genetic variation". Even
so-called "epigenetic traits", while not variations in the nucleotide
sequence, are nevertheless variations in the genome.

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

"In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of
heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by
mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the
name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics. It refers to
functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a
change in the nucleotide sequence..."

[Arkalen]

If "state vector" is what I think it is, then yes, by definition. I
don't see what that has to do with anything.

>
> And nobody, no physicist in the entire world, "understands" Quantum
> Theory. All they can do is use it to exploit the physical universe for
> their own purposes. No "understanding" beyond their craven lust for
> power and control is necessary.

Actually those quotes about nobody understanding quantum theory are
quite a few decades old. Physicists "understand" quantum theory better
and better.

And while we don't understand the universe completely, quantum theory is
the best understanding of it we currently have.

What's your better way of "understanding" the physical universe ?
Aristotle ? Newton ? Whatever the Bible says on the physical universe ?

None of those describe how the physical universe works as accurately as
quantum theory does.

[Garamond Lethe]

That's a reasonable hypothesis for someone who has never taken a
undergraduate biology class.

But... the math doesn't work, nor does the chemistry.

Let's take the eye as an example. Our last, common, primordial ancestor
has all the necessary genes for a mammalian eye tucked away, waiting for
them to become useful. Hundreds of millions of years go by and no
mutations touch this genetic code. Then overnight (evolutionarily
speaking) these genes vanish from all lineages except the mammals, where
they begin mutating at expected rates.

Nevermind the problem of where to put all of those genes. (

And what does this buy us? It's consistent with everything we observe,
doesn't make any novel predictions and requires a constant stream of
miracles. So as a hypothesis it doesn't have anything to recommend it
other than it makes you feel more comfortable.

>
> I am as certain of this as you are of Darwinian evolution.
>

Well, no, actually. You've put forward a hypothesis that you're unable
to test, even if you were willing. You're not going to investigate the
chemistry required for that hypothesis to be true, nor are you going to
calculate how many miracles would be required to keep that scheme
running. Your certainty is a matter of faith --- there's nothing in the
world that would be able to shake it.

My certainty in evolution will be upset by the first set of precambrian
rabbit fossils. At a smaller scale, I've had to completely think what I
understood evolution to be at least twice, and I still don't have an
intuitive grasp of the mathematics.

So no, I don't agree with you. You have far greater certainty than I do,
which is why my understanding is so much greater than yours.

>> If not precisely what does: "I'm far more certain we didn't have such
>> an ancestor than you are that we did." mean in practical terms?
>>
>>
>>> As for "getting rid of evidence", I have no desire to do that.
>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>> Can you tell me how I should explain the fact that ALL vertebrates
>>>> (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish) have an inverted retina, but NO
>>>> other group of animals (Crustaceans, Insects, Molluscs [includes
>>>> octopus]) has this characteristic?
>>>
>>> If it is a fact, you should explain it as a fact, obviously.
>>
>> Is this not evidence that the inverted retina was a characteristic of
>> an ancestor which all vertebrates have inherited? If it is not evidence
>> of a common ancestor, do you think it happened by pure chance or by
>> Design or what?
>
>
> That vertebrates have such a retina is a fact. That they acquired such a
> retina through Darwinian evolution is speculation. The difference should
> be clearly stated in presentations of biology.

Do vertebrates have a retina? All vertebrates? How many did you check?
Why isn't "vertebrates have a retina" equally speculative?

[Arkalen]

Never said you did. I was responding to Burkhard, jumping off your
conversation to talk about generalities. I would've thought that was
clear, what with the "Creationists".

> I said "genetic variation",
> which is what modern day "neo-Darwinism" calls it. All the things
> Burkhard mentions fall within the purview of "genetic variation". Even
> so-called "epigenetic traits", while not variations in the nucleotide
> sequence, are nevertheless variations in the genome.

"drift" and "neutral evolution" aren't forms of "genetic variation" of
the kind natural selection operates on. They're second-order processes
that explain how that genetic variation changes over time, the same way
natural selection does.