Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

maggie · 02-21-09 1:46 am

NOVA: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: JUDGMENT DAY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL Judge John E. Jones, III: I could never have imagined that I would receive threats to my person in an establishment clause case. But that's what happened in the Dover case. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_12_056.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_1 2_056.html</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

maggie · 02-21-09 1:49 am

Dawkins reads his hate mail: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxdxZ47JouU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxdxZ47JouU</a> Judge Jones shouldn't have been surprised.

heipauli · 02-21-09 2:06 am

Dunning-Kruger effect From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it"[1]. They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. --- Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (as Charles Darwin put it).[3] They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree, 1.Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill. 2.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others. 3.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy. 4.If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill. Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Syndrome" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Syndro me</a> Quote: Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge. In a phrase, clueless people think they are smart. Though many people have noticed this, it was rigorously demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December, 1999. Their study involved giving people tests of their knowledge in various domains, then asking them how they thought they did. People at the bottom of the results tended to hugely overestimate their abilities. As Dunning and Kruger noted, "Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd." Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence. This phenomenon manifests itself in all walks of life, and is surely familiar to users of Usenet and IRC discussion groups. Source: <a href="http://everything2.com/node/1371895" target=_top>http://everything2.com/node/1371895</a> Question: As you, Bob 2, seem to expert on so many issues in Life, Universe and Everything, I would like to read your opinion on Dunning-Kruger syndrome! I'm sure that reading it would be a fascinating experience.

bob_2 · 02-21-09 8:31 am

If judges go around rejecting what some believe to be reality, or not, and they have the power to ban items from being taught to their children, he should expect some angry people. No surprise here. He doesn't understand human nature, if they have to raise money and wait 10 years for a different result, he is going to frustrate some, and frustration can lead to this sort of reaction. Take Roe vs Wade, I image there's a few death threat on that case also. In fact Doctors killed over it. Frustrate people with your legal decisions and civil disobedience and worse are possible. Want another case, look no further than Prop 8.

maggie · 02-21-09 10:41 am

Interesting, Pauli. Here's the latest paper they have written (according to Wikipedia):<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Why the Unskilled are Unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetant<blockquote>One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision. --Bertrand Russell</blockquote><a href="http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~ehrlinger/Self_&_Social_Judgment/Ehrlinger_et_al_2008.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~ehrlinger/Self_&_Social_Ju dgment/Ehrlinger_et_al_2008.pdf</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

maggie · 02-21-09 10:43 am

The judge was pretty ticked off, it must be pointed out, that the Christians lied under oath about where those Panda books came from.

heipauli · 02-21-09 12:20 pm

Maggie, an interesting study. Important conclusions for a professional, who seldom gets objective feedback on one's skills or missing skills. BTW, are you in these days intending to try to guess the enigma of the missing stethoscope?

bob_2 · 02-21-09 7:26 pm

I hear about ticked off judges. They usually have an agenda, or they would calmly state their position, use the law an move on. Roe vs Wade proves to all of us the government is not always right. Lots of people have got angry over that decision, but anger doesn't make right, killing doctors doesn't make right. Omitting Intelligent Design from the Origin discussing doesnt't make it right, the judges aren't scientitists, they made their decision as a judge/lawyer, keep that in mind, and you will realize, there are further rounds to come.

maggie · 02-23-09 12:17 am

The Devil in Dover and elsewhere: the personal side of the Creationism controversy: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcn9nGZP4Y" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcn9nGZP4Y</a>

bob_2 · 02-23-09 1:58 am

Science is abscent God Religion will not respect all science concludes. PERIOD.

maggie · 02-23-09 2:24 am

Not all religious people are fundamentalists. Plenty of people believe in God and practice science. By what authority do you make such sweeping pronouncements, Bob? Who commissioned you to speak for "religion?"

bob_2 · 02-23-09 8:47 am

Science is used, but God can not be measured and they must use science without bringing God into it or they can lose their jobs. Try watching Ben Stein's movie "Expelled". Then mayb you will understand.

elaine · 02-23-09 2:35 pm

Only 39% of American say they "believe in the theory of evolution." Those who attend church weekly and did not attend college are least likely to believe in evolution. Of Americans with postgraduate degrees, 74% do accept evolution as fact. Gallup Poll

bob_2 · 02-23-09 3:02 pm

74% you believe feel that they have apes for cousins. Maybe it was the way the question was asked and where they held a job. Now if we ask, do you belief you are related to monkeys, let's get the % of that, and further, ask does God's plan of salvation include the apes.

bob_2 · 02-27-09 5:11 pm

I looked specifically for a 2009 update on micro and macroevolution. I didn't want the criticism of more recent information. So although it may be Darwin's birthday.....: <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/happy-darwin-day/" target=_top>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/ha ppy-darwin-day/</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:... Darwin's theory is that all living things are descendants of a common ancestor, modified by unguided processes such as random variation and natural selection. Although nobody doubts that variation and selection can produce minor changes within existing species ("microevolution"), Darwin claimed that microevolution leads to the origin of new species, organs and body plans ("macroevolution"). Eighty years after "The Origin of Species," evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky acknowledged there was still no hard evidence connecting microevolution and macroevolution. Unfortunately, since only microevolution can be observed within a human lifetime, Mr. Dobzhansky wrote, "We are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit." This assumption is still an assumption. No one has ever observed the origin of a new species by variation and selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans. Not even modern genetics has solved the problem. No matter what we do to the DNA of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly. Although Darwin's modern followers claim there is "overwhelming evidence" for his theory, nothing could be further from the truth. Nor is Darwin's theory the cornerstone of modern biology. Most of the basic disciplines in biology were founded before Darwin's birth - including anatomy, physiology, botany, zoology, microbiology, systematics, embryology and paleontology. During Darwin's lifetime, Gregor Mendel founded genetics and Louis Agassiz and Richard Owen pioneered comparative biology. But none of these scientists accepted Darwinism. ... <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

john8verse32 · 02-28-09 2:35 pm

No one has ever observed the origin of a new species by variation and selection. true. but misleading. if it happened as scientists believe, it happened too many years ago for our "observation". and if it is an ongoing thing, it happens too slowly for human observation. but mutation and evolution ARE happening... witness each year how flu vaccines have to be modified to meet new variants of virii which have evolved to resist last years vaccine or previous drugs.

bob_2 · 02-28-09 3:21 pm

I congratulate the scientists working on that, but extrapolation or surmising on the other I'll leave to you, John.

neal · 03-01-09 8:56 am

I looked specifically for a 2009 update on micro and macroevolution. I would conclude your attempt to be a total failure. From Bob's Cut-n-Paste:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Eighty years after "The Origin of Species," evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky acknowledged there was still no hard evidence connecting microevolution and macroevolution.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Eighty years after?? Let's see... 1859+80=1939 2009-1939=70 So the author of the WT piece (an apologist from the Discovery Institute) is quoting as his authority something from 70 years ago? In this field 5 years seems to be a long time. Just a couple of weeks ago I saw an author which stated in the NYT or WaPo that there is not a single piece of evidence which refutes Darwin's theory. A source of authority from 70 years ago is not a recent update.

neal · 03-01-09 9:08 am

Here's a quote from the authority used by the Discovery Institute writer of the WT piece:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way. – Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Ma kes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution</a> Here is the introduction to Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:As recently as 1966, sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik: "The Holy Koran, the Prophet's teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit... and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind.... Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet." The good sheik evidently holds the Copernican theory to be a "mere theory," not a "fact." In this he is technically correct. A theory can be verified by a mass of facts, but it becomes a proven theory, not a fact. The sheik was perhaps unaware that the Space Age had begun before he asked the king to suppress the Copernican heresy. The sphericity of the earth has been seen by astronauts, and even by many earth-bound people on their television screens. Perhaps the sheik could retort that those who venture beyond the confines of God's earth suffer hallucinations, and that the earth is really flat. Parts of the Copernican world model, such as the contention that the earth rotates around the sun, and not vice versa, have not been verified by direct observations even to the extent the sphericity of the earth has been. Yet scientists accept the model as an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because it makes sense of a multitude of facts which are otherwise meaningless or extravagant. To non-specialists most of these facts are unfamiliar. Why then do we accept the "mere theory" that the earth is a sphere revolving around a spherical sun? Are we simply submitting to authority? Not quite: we know that those who took the time to study the evidence found it convincing.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html" target=_top>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/tex t_pop/l_102_01.html</a> The Discovery Institute writer is, once again, reverting to the old trick of quote mining in order to lie for Jesus.

neal · 03-01-09 9:45 am

Just a couple of weeks ago I saw an author which stated in the NYT or WaPo that there is not a single piece of evidence which refutes Darwin's theory. Sorry, my bad. Forbes was the place, not the NYT or WaPo.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Commentary Why Evolution Is True Jerry A. Coyne, 02.12.09, 11:44 AM EST Creationists don't deserve credence--especially from Forbes. --snip-- There are no observations in nature that refute Darwinism, but there are plenty that refute Egnor's creationist alternative. How does he explain the persistence of "dead genes" in species (like our own broken one for making vitamin C)--genes that were functional in our ancestors? What explains those annoying hominin fossils that span the gap from early apelike creatures to modern humans? Why do human fetuses produce a coat of hair after six months in the womb, and then shed it before birth? Why didn't the creator stock oceanic islands with mammals, reptiles and amphibians? Why did He give us vestigial ear muscles that have no function? Why do whales occasionally sprout hind legs? Did God design all creatures to fool us into thinking that they evolved?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html" target=_top>http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creatio n-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Jerry Allen Coyne (b. 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation, ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly if they involve Drosophila.[1] Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship. At Harvard, Coyne studied under Richard Lewontin, who sponsored his doctoral degree. He has served as Vice President of the Society for the Study of Evolution (1996) and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985-1988; 1994-2000) and The American Naturalist (1990-1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing. His work is widely published, not only in scientific journals, but also in such mainstream venues as The New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement, and The New Republic. His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition. Coyne is a critic of creationism[2], and its intelligent design (ID) varients, calling it "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[3]<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne</a>

neal · 03-01-09 9:48 am

Bob I'll take Jerry Coyne et al as my authority on the subject. You are welcome to stick with your Liar-For-Jesus dude from the DI.

neal · 03-01-09 10:44 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Jonathan Wells is the author of "Icons of Evolution" and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design," and is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash. He has a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California, Berkeley.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

bob_2 · 03-01-09 10:44 am

Sorry, no DI participant: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: Eighty years after "The Origin of Species," evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky acknowledged there was still no hard evidence connecting microevolution and macroevolution. Unfortunately, since only microevolution can be observed within a human lifetime, Mr. Dobzhansky wrote, "We are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/ha ppy-darwin-day/ Sorry it should work better if you copy the link into your borwser (Message edited by Bob_2 on March 01, 2009) (Message edited by Bob_2 on March 01, 2009)

bob_2 · 03-01-09 10:45 am

BTW, Thanks Neal and welcome back.

neal · 03-01-09 10:48 am

Sorry, no DI participant: I said the writer of the WT piece. Not the author of the little quote that THE WRITER OF THE Times piece used. The writer is Johnathan Wells from the Discovery Institute. The DI dude quoted a guy who completely refutes everything the DI stands for. That is quote-mining. Lying for Jesus. Etc.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#76 02-21-09 1:46 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#77 02-21-09 1:49 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#78 02-21-09 2:06 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#79 02-21-09 8:31 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#80 02-21-09 10:41 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#81 02-21-09 10:43 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#82 02-21-09 12:20 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#83 02-21-09 7:26 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#84 02-23-09 12:17 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#85 02-23-09 1:58 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#86 02-23-09 2:24 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#87 02-23-09 8:47 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#88 02-23-09 2:35 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#89 02-23-09 3:02 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#90 02-27-09 5:11 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#91 02-28-09 2:35 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#92 02-28-09 3:21 pm

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#93 03-01-09 8:56 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#94 03-01-09 9:08 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#95 03-01-09 9:45 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#96 03-01-09 9:48 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#97 03-01-09 10:44 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#98 03-01-09 10:44 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#99 03-01-09 10:45 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

#100 03-01-09 10:48 am

Re: Happy Birthday- Charles Darwin

Board footer