New York Times article
If you don't want to read the article, I will try to summarize.
Creationism got shot down by the Scopes Monkey Trial
Creation Science got shot down by the Supreme Court
Intelligent Design got shot down in Dover
So now, the "born again" creationism boils down to a few choice words...
"strengths and weaknesses"
It isn't about creationism at all, they just want teachers to instruct students about the "strengths and weaknesses" of 'Evolution'.
That sounds like a darn good idea, we should always teach kids about weaknesses with theories.
.....................................................................................................................................................
Here is the problem, and I finally want to expound on this in a different light.
Evolution IS NOT a scientific theory in the popular sense. I am not around my own little biologist right now, so I cannot double check this with her.
Evolution is a natural phenomenon.
When biologists use the term "Evolutionary Theory", they are using it in the same sense that Engineers use the term "Control Theory". In fact, it is EXACTLY like "Control Theory"(you might know it as feedback systems)
It isn't that there is any doubt about the known facts of the "theory", it is that the entire topic is not(and probably will not ever conclusively) be quantified.
Let me make it clear.
The PID controller is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN.
Evolution via natural selection and mutation is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN
However, we never know when a new layer will be discovered.
Ugh, yet another plot to get dogma accepted as fact.
Though I'm all for teaching the weaknesses of evolution, I'm opposed to teaching the lies the creationist crowd wants.
Some examples of real controversy that should be discussed, through probably not in highschool biology
-- secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis may (or may not) have scrambled parts of the eukaryotic family tree.
-- confusion about the precise location of the base of the chordate tree.
-- the single axis that exists in Cnidarians may (or may not) be equivalent to either of the two axes of bilaterians
But to present utter crap like irreducible complexity or "machine like" biological constructions as "controversy".... Again, ugh.
Though I'm all for teaching the weaknesses of evolution, I'm opposed to teaching the lies the creationist crowd wants.
Some examples of real controversy that should be discussed, through probably not in highschool biology
-- secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis may (or may not) have scrambled parts of the eukaryotic family tree.
-- confusion about the precise location of the base of the chordate tree.
-- the single axis that exists in Cnidarians may (or may not) be equivalent to either of the two axes of bilaterians
But to present utter crap like irreducible complexity or "machine like" biological constructions as "controversy".... Again, ugh.
QUOTE
Some examples of real controversy that should be discussed, through probably not in highschool biology
-- secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis may (or may not) have scrambled parts of the eukaryotic family tree.
-- confusion about the precise location of the base of the chordate tree.
-- the single axis that exists in Cnidarians may (or may not) be equivalent to either of the two axes of bilaterians
-- secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis may (or may not) have scrambled parts of the eukaryotic family tree.
-- confusion about the precise location of the base of the chordate tree.
-- the single axis that exists in Cnidarians may (or may not) be equivalent to either of the two axes of bilaterians
Those are not "weaknesses" of Evolutionary Theory, rather they are very good questions about Taxonomy. This whole Taxonomy/Evolutionary Biology hand-holding still needs to work out some kinks. We didn't scrap the whole system when we discovered genetics, and it gets a little confusing.
In fact, I think it almost makes it worse. Take flowering plants as an example. They aren't grouped by similar features, appearance, habitat, or anything else if you group them by phylogenetic nomenclature. It might be nice to know that a strawberry is more closely related to marijuana than it is to blueberry, but it doesn't seem particularly helpful.
The problem is; fundies don't think. They regurgitate the nonsense they are fed, whether it is from the book of fairy stories (aka the Bible) or some ID institute.
dudbat is a perfect example, as was Dud1.
Physfan
dudbat is a perfect example, as was Dud1.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Jun 18 2008, 04:20 AM)
The problem is; fundies don't think. They regurgitate the nonsense they are fed, whether it is from the book of fairy stories (aka the Bible) or some ID institute.
dudbat is a perfect example, as was Dud1.
Physfan
HAHAH Can you smell the Fear?
You know, sadly I see you running from reasoned and logical debate, especially from Dudbat (hehe).
I do not get nonsense from ID (I do not support it), I do not consider the Bible Literal (it is Allegorical) and you have yet to show me my "nonsense".
Bring it on, brainiac.
You are not arguing with some uneducated fundie wackjob, you gotta bring your A-game to my court.
dudbat is a perfect example, as was Dud1.
Physfan
HAHAH Can you smell the Fear?
You know, sadly I see you running from reasoned and logical debate, especially from Dudbat (hehe).
I do not get nonsense from ID (I do not support it), I do not consider the Bible Literal (it is Allegorical) and you have yet to show me my "nonsense".
Bring it on, brainiac.
You are not arguing with some uneducated fundie wackjob, you gotta bring your A-game to my court.
>>> Evolution via natural selection and mutation is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN <<<
drivel!
SEE the latest @ Showtopic= 20315 OR read the two links for yourself,
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=24473
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...nce/sc0001.html
drivel!
SEE the latest @ Showtopic= 20315 OR read the two links for yourself,
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=24473
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...nce/sc0001.html
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 18 2008, 07:25 AM)
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=24473
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...nce/sc0001.html
Do you have sources which aren't essentially someone's view online? Getting published on a catholic website or even a book published isn't peer review in the scientific sense. The Church of Scientology has it's own publishing wing but I doubt you think it's valid just because you can buy it in Borders.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...nce/sc0001.html
Do you have sources which aren't essentially someone's view online? Getting published on a catholic website or even a book published isn't peer review in the scientific sense. The Church of Scientology has it's own publishing wing but I doubt you think it's valid just because you can buy it in Borders.
QUOTE
You are not arguing with some uneducated fundie wackjob, you gotta bring your A-game to my court.
You are kidding yourself.
QUOTE (Physfan+Jun 18 2008, 07:05 AM)
You are kidding yourself.
Well then out me for the charlatan you think I am.
Well then out me for the charlatan you think I am.
This is what happens when you get your history from The New York Times, PuckSR, and the Daily Report.
Creationism got shot down by the Scopes Monkey Trial
No it did not, Scopes was convicted (guilty) and all the appeals held. The ban on teaching Evolution in school was upheld.
Creation Science got shot down by the Supreme Court
Eventually but misleading...
actual decision verbage
Supreme Court Case
The AEA appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which concluded:
Arkansas's law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality. Arkansas did not seek to excise from the curricula of its schools and universities all discussion of the origin of man. The law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
So ACTUALLY the truth is, that Evolution was first UNBANNED, and allowed to be taught WITH creation science.
then finally in Edwards V. Aguilard
Edwards v. Aguilard
So ACTUALLY the truth is, that Evolution was first UNBANNED, and allowed to be taught WITH creation science.
then finally in Edwards V. Aguilard
Edwards v. Aguilard
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
So the consequence was
Opinion
On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
>The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
>The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
>The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom," that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute."
So this does not prohibit INTELLIGENT DESIGN, just creationism...
So this does not prohibit INTELLIGENT DESIGN, just creationism...
Intelligent Design got shot down in Dover
and again, misleading...
Katzmiller v. Dover
The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy there was no right to a jury trial; the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution did not apply. It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[2]
...
Analysis and criticism
The University of Montana Law review published three articles addressing this topic in its winter 2007 issue.[33] David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, senior fellows or officers of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, that the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the decision will have no effect on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.[34] Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al article, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned, and that it marks the end to legal efforts by the intelligent design movement to introduce creationism in public schools.[35] DeWolf et al responded to the Irons article in the same issue.[36]
The Dover case never went to the Supreme court, was PREVENTED from appeal by opponents of ID who took over the Dover school board, so that is not exactly the final word is it? WHY did they not want to get the final say?
So the fat lady has yet to sing for ID, even though I personally do not support it. I just support the truth.
The "strengths and weaknesses" argument is targeted exactly at the previous court rulings, that concept is what has been upheld to be allowed in all of those decisions, even considering ID has yet to reach the Supreme Court.
The continuing problem will eventually be lost by the Atheists, although it may take further refinement and narrowing by the courts.
The point is, that once religion is sufficiently removed from whatever they produce, your weapon is gone. The Establishment clause.
They can disagree in a SCIENTIFIC way eventually. Science itself cannot defeat or replace religion (except for the nutty ones refusing actual science). So at some point, the courts will step in and prevent it being used as a weapon AGAINST religion. If Science and the scientists kept Atheism out of play, this would not happen, but they will not, and it will happen as sure as the sun will rise and PuckSR will complain about this post.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 16 2008, 11:50 PM)
Creationism got shot down by the Scopes Monkey Trial
No it did not, Scopes was convicted (guilty) and all the appeals held. The ban on teaching Evolution in school was upheld.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 16 2008, 11:50 PM)
Creation Science got shot down by the Supreme Court
Eventually but misleading...
actual decision verbage
QUOTE
Supreme Court Case
The AEA appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which concluded:
Arkansas's law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality. Arkansas did not seek to excise from the curricula of its schools and universities all discussion of the origin of man. The law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
So ACTUALLY the truth is, that Evolution was first UNBANNED, and allowed to be taught WITH creation science.
then finally in Edwards V. Aguilard
Edwards v. Aguilard
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Supreme Court Case The AEA appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which concluded: Arkansas's law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality. Arkansas did not seek to excise from the curricula of its schools and universities all discussion of the origin of man. The law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. |
So ACTUALLY the truth is, that Evolution was first UNBANNED, and allowed to be taught WITH creation science.
then finally in Edwards V. Aguilard
Edwards v. Aguilard
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
So the consequence was
QUOTE
Opinion
On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
>The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
>The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
>The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom," that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute."
So this does not prohibit INTELLIGENT DESIGN, just creationism...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Opinion On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is: >The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; >The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and >The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught: We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom," that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute." |
So this does not prohibit INTELLIGENT DESIGN, just creationism...
Intelligent Design got shot down in Dover
and again, misleading...
Katzmiller v. Dover
QUOTE
The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy there was no right to a jury trial; the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution did not apply. It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[2]
...
Analysis and criticism
The University of Montana Law review published three articles addressing this topic in its winter 2007 issue.[33] David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, senior fellows or officers of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, that the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the decision will have no effect on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.[34] Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al article, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned, and that it marks the end to legal efforts by the intelligent design movement to introduce creationism in public schools.[35] DeWolf et al responded to the Irons article in the same issue.[36]
The Dover case never went to the Supreme court, was PREVENTED from appeal by opponents of ID who took over the Dover school board, so that is not exactly the final word is it? WHY did they not want to get the final say?
So the fat lady has yet to sing for ID, even though I personally do not support it. I just support the truth.
The "strengths and weaknesses" argument is targeted exactly at the previous court rulings, that concept is what has been upheld to be allowed in all of those decisions, even considering ID has yet to reach the Supreme Court.
The continuing problem will eventually be lost by the Atheists, although it may take further refinement and narrowing by the courts.
The point is, that once religion is sufficiently removed from whatever they produce, your weapon is gone. The Establishment clause.
They can disagree in a SCIENTIFIC way eventually. Science itself cannot defeat or replace religion (except for the nutty ones refusing actual science). So at some point, the courts will step in and prevent it being used as a weapon AGAINST religion. If Science and the scientists kept Atheism out of play, this would not happen, but they will not, and it will happen as sure as the sun will rise and PuckSR will complain about this post.
... but I doubt you think it's valid ...
The validity is in what I see as well researched. Motives has a teleological feel.
Drivel, on the other hand, has that wet tautological feel.
Rethinking the Origin of Species by Natural Selection
Riv. Biol. 74 (1981), pp. 11-26 [...] Structuralist Biology. Neo-Darwinism can tell us a great deal about the inheritance of variations on a typical form such as meta- bolic mutants in E. coli, homoeotic mutants in Drosophila, or genetic diseases in Homo sapiens. However, it can tell us virtually nothing about the typical form itself, which is simply historically given, not explained. This is characteristic of an approach to organisms which emphasizes external relationships (adaptive properties) and their inheritance while saying very little about internal relationships, the principles of biological organisation.
However, before Darwin the tradition known as rational morphology had as its explicit goal the discovery of the laws of biological form which were considered to be derivable from a comparative study of mor- phology. It was the work of such biologists as Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Cuvier, Reichert, and Owen that gave rise to the remarkable insights...
Brian C. Goodwin and Gerry C. Webster*
* School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton (U.K.)
Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 92 (1999), pp. 464-467.
No it did not, Scopes was convicted (guilty) and all the appeals held. The ban on teaching Evolution in school was upheld.
Actually, that is incorrect.
Scopes was dismissed on a technicality(the judge had decided the fine rather than the jury).
To my knowledge, NO ONE was ever fully convicted under the Butler Act.
It is well known that the University of Tenn. continued to teach Evolution.
It was repealed from the lawbooks after a disgruntled ex-teacher threatened to challenge it in court again.
All challenges to the Act failed, but Scopes never paid a dime. The Scopes decision was declared a "mistrial" and the Attorney General refused to re-prosecute.
Actually, that is incorrect.
Scopes was dismissed on a technicality(the judge had decided the fine rather than the jury).
To my knowledge, NO ONE was ever fully convicted under the Butler Act.
It is well known that the University of Tenn. continued to teach Evolution.
It was repealed from the lawbooks after a disgruntled ex-teacher threatened to challenge it in court again.
All challenges to the Act failed, but Scopes never paid a dime. The Scopes decision was declared a "mistrial" and the Attorney General refused to re-prosecute.
Eventually but misleading...
Wow...what are we arguing about?
I think I made three rather general statements
For example, I never said that the Dover case went to SCOTUS.
It didn't need to go before SCOTUS.
I don't think an ID case will ever go before SCOTUS.
I think any State Supreme Court would shoot down ID.
For example, I never said that the Dover case went to SCOTUS.
It didn't need to go before SCOTUS.
I don't think an ID case will ever go before SCOTUS.
I think any State Supreme Court would shoot down ID.
They can disagree in a SCIENTIFIC way eventually. Science itself cannot defeat or replace religion (except for the nutty ones refusing actual science). So at some point, the courts will step in and prevent it being used as a weapon AGAINST religion. If Science and the scientists kept Atheism out of play, this would not happen, but they will not, and it will happen as sure as the sun will rise and PuckSR will complain about this post.
Wow...a little dramatic?
When are scientists using "atheism"?
I do agree about one thing....
There is going to be a court case very soon involving "religious belief v. facts"
My bet is that either the Scientologists or the Mormons will bring it up.
So....
Which is going to win?
Religious Freedom or Freedom of Speech?
Should I be allowed to tell the children of Mormons that their parents religion is a giant lie?
Should I be allowed to get on television and reveal OTA III?
Does it count as slander/libel when it is true?
I think it is pretty clear that the onus of proof is on the accuser of slander/libel...and I think religious freedom will have to bow to freedom of speech.
Actually, that is an interesting analog.
The emotions involved with that scenario and the conclusions you reach will probably be the same as your reactions to the conflict I mentioned.
However......
There is one key difference.
Beauty is a subjective term.
I am curious of what competing scientific theory could be taught with evolution. Has there been one in the last century?
Nope, lamarkianism was permanently disproven
...
I don't recall the grand laboratories of the creationists ever contributing anything to science, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Doubly wrong, I'd say, Alacri. Creationists are represented amply as known scientists of the past.
But more to the point, do you recall the definition of tropism?
If not, it is unlikely Wikipedia would screw it up too badly. I was reading somewhere about the wind as selective response in plants {In animals, one supposes, Lamarkism might be more problematic.}. I can't recall where, now.
Anyway, to Steveo's point\question...
Here, There Is Reference #nine.
Although Darwin's monophyletic view of life's history has reigned as the dominant theory of the history of life during most of the twentieth century, a number of biologists now question that view on evidential grounds. These scientists now see the present diversity and disparity of organisms as having originated from many separate ancestral forms and lines of descent. Those favoring a so-called polyphyletic or multiple separate origins view of life's history now cite evidence from paleontology, embryology, biochemistry, and molecular biology in support of their view. [9]
9. C. Schwabe and G. W. Warr, "A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic Potential Hypothesis," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27 (1984): 465-85;
C. Schwabe, "On the Basis of the Studies of the Origins of Life," Origins of Life 15 (1985): 213-16;
W. G. Inglis, "Evolutionary Waves: Patterns in the Origins of Animal Phyla," Australian Journal of Zoology 33 (1985): 153-78; P. Senapathy, Independent Birth of Organisms (Madison, Wisc.: Genome Press, 1994);
M. S. Gordon, "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay," Biology and Philosophy 14 (1999): 331-48; W. F. Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science 284 (1999): 2124-28;
W. F. Doolittle, "The Nature of the Universal Ancestor and the Evolution of the Proteome," Current Opinion in Structural Biology 10 (2000): 355-58;
D. W. Thompson, On Growth and Form (Reprint; New York: Dover, 1992);
P. A. Nelson, On Common Descent (Chicago: Evolutionary Monographs, 2004); D. T. Anderson, "Origins and Relationships among the Animal Phyla," Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 106 (1982): 151-66;
J. R. Nursall, "On the Origins of the Major Groups of Animals," Evolution 16 (1962): 118-23; G. Webster and B. C. Goodwin, "The Origin of Species: A Structuralist Approach," Journal of Social and Biological Structures 5 (1982): 15-47.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution is a pretty broad term for the unenlightened to play mischief.
MrB.
I, of course, would apologize for my part in that unenlightenment.
In fact, I think a fine was paid. But you are right, as I recall, the hundred dollars or whatever was to be imposed by the jury, and not the judge... the technicallity that kept the case from going all the way to the SCOTUS as the prosecution wanted (or was it the defense?). Scopes never paid it, but a newspaper 'back East' paid it, I think; as all part of a publicity stunt.
I never said anything about creationists as people (well, I did, but that was meant as a figure of speech). Creationists are just as capable of being good scientists (on most fields) as anyone else. Let me restate my previous claim with a little poetic freedom.
I don't recall the "theory" of creationism ever contributing anything to science.
I never said anything about creationists as people (well, I did, but that was meant as a figure of speech). Creationists are just as capable of being good scientists (on most fields) as anyone else. Let me restate my previous claim with a little poetic freedom.
I don't recall the "theory" of creationism ever contributing anything to science.
But more to the point, do you recall the definition of tropism?
Hmm, it's been a while since I took any biology (about 7 years), but tropism doesn't change an organism's DNA, does it? Wikipedia, while slightly lacking, seems to agree with me
Let us call them 'assumptions', shall we?
I'll say one thing for thecreationistsevolutionists! Their evolutionary approach to getting their crap accepted just might provide proof of evolution itself! 
They keeprandomly changing their technique little by little and maybe one of these days, (god forbidbless 
) they will [not] succeed.
It is only people who need to be 'rescued' from their own misconceptions that lead to self-destructive behaviour. Whatever name is given, we are talking about people and how they fail to cope in a world they can no longer understand.
g.
The validity is in what I see as well researched. Motives has a teleological feel.
Drivel, on the other hand, has that wet tautological feel.
Rethinking the Origin of Species by Natural Selection
Riv. Biol. 74 (1981), pp. 11-26 [...] Structuralist Biology. Neo-Darwinism can tell us a great deal about the inheritance of variations on a typical form such as meta- bolic mutants in E. coli, homoeotic mutants in Drosophila, or genetic diseases in Homo sapiens. However, it can tell us virtually nothing about the typical form itself, which is simply historically given, not explained. This is characteristic of an approach to organisms which emphasizes external relationships (adaptive properties) and their inheritance while saying very little about internal relationships, the principles of biological organisation.
However, before Darwin the tradition known as rational morphology had as its explicit goal the discovery of the laws of biological form which were considered to be derivable from a comparative study of mor- phology. It was the work of such biologists as Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Cuvier, Reichert, and Owen that gave rise to the remarkable insights...
Brian C. Goodwin and Gerry C. Webster*
* School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton (U.K.)
Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 92 (1999), pp. 464-467.
QUOTE (the OP+)
When biologists use the term "Evolutionary Theory", they are using it in the same sense that Engineers use the term "Control Theory". In fact, it is EXACTLY like "Control Theory"(you might know it as feedback systems)
It isn't that there is any doubt about the known facts of the "theory", it is that the entire topic is not(and probably will not ever conclusively) be quantified.
Let me make it clear.
The PID controller is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN.
Evolution via natural selection and mutation is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN
466 Brian C. Goodwin and Gerry C. Webster
...
The phenomenon of inheritance may be understood as one example of the generation of invariance in living organisms, i.e. the process whereby the invariant structure together with the selection rules are generated in reproduction, sexual or asexual. In a field description of organisms, both generation and regeneration are abstractly understood in terms of the invariant properties of harmonic functions, which can be ‘generated’ from their parts (i.e. the part ‘contains’ the whole in a particular sense, as exemplified for example in the analytical continuation property of analytic functions). Within the context of this structuralist perspective, evolution becomes a secondary problem involving the introduction of temporal (historical) relationships between actualised members of the invariant set. Viable organisms must, of course, be adapted to some environment, an observation which is readily recognised as the tautology which it has always been.
It isn't that there is any doubt about the known facts of the "theory", it is that the entire topic is not(and probably will not ever conclusively) be quantified.
Let me make it clear.
The PID controller is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN.
Evolution via natural selection and mutation is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN
466 Brian C. Goodwin and Gerry C. Webster
...
The phenomenon of inheritance may be understood as one example of the generation of invariance in living organisms, i.e. the process whereby the invariant structure together with the selection rules are generated in reproduction, sexual or asexual. In a field description of organisms, both generation and regeneration are abstractly understood in terms of the invariant properties of harmonic functions, which can be ‘generated’ from their parts (i.e. the part ‘contains’ the whole in a particular sense, as exemplified for example in the analytical continuation property of analytic functions). Within the context of this structuralist perspective, evolution becomes a secondary problem involving the introduction of temporal (historical) relationships between actualised members of the invariant set. Viable organisms must, of course, be adapted to some environment, an observation which is readily recognised as the tautology which it has always been.
An appeal at Dover would've been mostly about matters of law, anyway. As well, that school board was ruined financially by the lawsuit. The old board spent gads of money by pushing for Creationism, and all the other institutes (i.e., Discovery Institute) got those poor taxpayers to fight their battles.
Personally, I think teachin the strengths an weaknesses o the TOE is a good idea.
After all, what better way o makin clear the validity o it than showin the list o strengths a mile long, an an empty list o weaknesses?
Fer the record, the fact that evolution don't explain the cambrian explosion ain't a weakness. Evolution is a mechanism. The cambrian explosion was an event. Say that not explainin it is a weakness o evolution is like sayin not explainin the existence o cellphones is a weakness o quantum mechanics.
EDIT: did anyone else check out that link in the article that supposedly lists weaknesses with evolution? It takes ya to the main page o that group, where there's another link to the page what supposedly contains the list. A dead link.
"Admissions by Evolutionists that highlight some weaknesses in evolutionary theory here."
After all, what better way o makin clear the validity o it than showin the list o strengths a mile long, an an empty list o weaknesses?
Fer the record, the fact that evolution don't explain the cambrian explosion ain't a weakness. Evolution is a mechanism. The cambrian explosion was an event. Say that not explainin it is a weakness o evolution is like sayin not explainin the existence o cellphones is a weakness o quantum mechanics.
EDIT: did anyone else check out that link in the article that supposedly lists weaknesses with evolution? It takes ya to the main page o that group, where there's another link to the page what supposedly contains the list. A dead link.
"Admissions by Evolutionists that highlight some weaknesses in evolutionary theory here."
The Discovery Institute does not belong in serious scientific debate. It is an organization that employs dishonorable techniques and pedals known falsehoods and absurdities as truth.
No amount of money can turn wishful thinking into scientific truth.
No amount of money can turn wishful thinking into scientific truth.
QUOTE
No it did not, Scopes was convicted (guilty) and all the appeals held. The ban on teaching Evolution in school was upheld.
Actually, that is incorrect.
Scopes was dismissed on a technicality(the judge had decided the fine rather than the jury).
To my knowledge, NO ONE was ever fully convicted under the Butler Act.
It is well known that the University of Tenn. continued to teach Evolution.
It was repealed from the lawbooks after a disgruntled ex-teacher threatened to challenge it in court again.
All challenges to the Act failed, but Scopes never paid a dime. The Scopes decision was declared a "mistrial" and the Attorney General refused to re-prosecute.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
No it did not, Scopes was convicted (guilty) and all the appeals held. The ban on teaching Evolution in school was upheld. |
Actually, that is incorrect.
Scopes was dismissed on a technicality(the judge had decided the fine rather than the jury).
To my knowledge, NO ONE was ever fully convicted under the Butler Act.
It is well known that the University of Tenn. continued to teach Evolution.
It was repealed from the lawbooks after a disgruntled ex-teacher threatened to challenge it in court again.
All challenges to the Act failed, but Scopes never paid a dime. The Scopes decision was declared a "mistrial" and the Attorney General refused to re-prosecute.
Eventually but misleading...
Wow...what are we arguing about?
I think I made three rather general statements
QUOTE
The Dover case never went to the Supreme court, was PREVENTED from appeal by opponents of ID who took over the Dover school board, so that is not exactly the final word is it? WHY did they not want to get the final say?
For example, I never said that the Dover case went to SCOTUS.
It didn't need to go before SCOTUS.
I don't think an ID case will ever go before SCOTUS.
I think any State Supreme Court would shoot down ID.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Dover case never went to the Supreme court, was PREVENTED from appeal by opponents of ID who took over the Dover school board, so that is not exactly the final word is it? WHY did they not want to get the final say? |
For example, I never said that the Dover case went to SCOTUS.
It didn't need to go before SCOTUS.
I don't think an ID case will ever go before SCOTUS.
I think any State Supreme Court would shoot down ID.
They can disagree in a SCIENTIFIC way eventually. Science itself cannot defeat or replace religion (except for the nutty ones refusing actual science). So at some point, the courts will step in and prevent it being used as a weapon AGAINST religion. If Science and the scientists kept Atheism out of play, this would not happen, but they will not, and it will happen as sure as the sun will rise and PuckSR will complain about this post.
Wow...a little dramatic?
When are scientists using "atheism"?
I do agree about one thing....
There is going to be a court case very soon involving "religious belief v. facts"
My bet is that either the Scientologists or the Mormons will bring it up.
So....
Which is going to win?
Religious Freedom or Freedom of Speech?
Should I be allowed to tell the children of Mormons that their parents religion is a giant lie?
Should I be allowed to get on television and reveal OTA III?
Does it count as slander/libel when it is true?
I think it is pretty clear that the onus of proof is on the accuser of slander/libel...and I think religious freedom will have to bow to freedom of speech.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 19 2008, 12:06 AM)
Religious Freedom or Freedom of Speech?
Should I be allowed to tell the children of Mormons that their parents religion is a giant lie?
Should I be allowed to get on television and reveal OTA III?
Does it count as slander/libel when it is true?
Telling the truth might relieve one of civil liability relative to libel/slander statutes. But telling the truth can be against the law in certain circumstance. If you approach a man who believes his wife is beautiful (and says so on numerous occasions) and tell him his wife is ugly and fat, that might constitute Disorderly Conduct (“provoking language or speech”). In spite of the fact that she might be ugly and fat.
Should I be allowed to tell the children of Mormons that their parents religion is a giant lie?
Should I be allowed to get on television and reveal OTA III?
Does it count as slander/libel when it is true?
Telling the truth might relieve one of civil liability relative to libel/slander statutes. But telling the truth can be against the law in certain circumstance. If you approach a man who believes his wife is beautiful (and says so on numerous occasions) and tell him his wife is ugly and fat, that might constitute Disorderly Conduct (“provoking language or speech”). In spite of the fact that she might be ugly and fat.
Ok, seriously. This has to stop.
Don't the Creationists get it? When will they understand that none of their plans to undermine the teaching of evolution will work? Come on. Creation science, Intelligent Design, Strengths and Weaknesses. All are *slightly* different on the outside, but the idea is the same, every time. List a bunch of "flaws" in the theory of evolution (which aren't flaws at all), and then use those "flaws" to undermine it's teaching. Boom. Strengths and Weaknesses, in a nutshell.
Cue the idiots...
Don't the Creationists get it? When will they understand that none of their plans to undermine the teaching of evolution will work? Come on. Creation science, Intelligent Design, Strengths and Weaknesses. All are *slightly* different on the outside, but the idea is the same, every time. List a bunch of "flaws" in the theory of evolution (which aren't flaws at all), and then use those "flaws" to undermine it's teaching. Boom. Strengths and Weaknesses, in a nutshell.
Cue the idiots...
I am curious of what competing scientific theory could be taught with evolution. Has there been one in the last century?
I am also curious how science "keeps atheism in play"? Since atheism is a belief in no god is not mentioning god in a scientific paper what you are talking about? Because I read plenty of scientific papers, and I never hear anything about the positive or negative existence of god (mind you, its physics papers, not biology papers).
Remember, there is a big difference between a scientist discussing his/her religious beliefs in a non scientific setting than him/her using his religious beliefs in research. I think you would be hard pressed to find a scientist who actually publishes peer reviewed research who uses religion in the research.
QUOTE
They can disagree in a SCIENTIFIC way eventually. Science itself cannot defeat or replace religion (except for the nutty ones refusing actual science). So at some point, the courts will step in and prevent it being used as a weapon AGAINST religion. If Science and the scientists kept Atheism out of play, this would not happen, but they will not, and it will happen as sure as the sun will rise and PuckSR will complain about this post.
I am also curious how science "keeps atheism in play"? Since atheism is a belief in no god is not mentioning god in a scientific paper what you are talking about? Because I read plenty of scientific papers, and I never hear anything about the positive or negative existence of god (mind you, its physics papers, not biology papers).
Remember, there is a big difference between a scientist discussing his/her religious beliefs in a non scientific setting than him/her using his religious beliefs in research. I think you would be hard pressed to find a scientist who actually publishes peer reviewed research who uses religion in the research.
QUOTE
Telling the truth might relieve one of civil liability relative to libel/slander statutes. But telling the truth can be against the law in certain circumstance. If you approach a man who believes his wife is beautiful (and says so on numerous occasions) and tell him his wife is ugly and fat, that might constitute Disorderly Conduct (“provoking language or speech”). In spite of the fact that she might be ugly and fat.
Actually, that is an interesting analog.
The emotions involved with that scenario and the conclusions you reach will probably be the same as your reactions to the conflict I mentioned.
However......
There is one key difference.
Beauty is a subjective term.
QUOTE (Steveo+Jun 19 2008, 10:00 PM)
I am curious of what competing scientific theory could be taught with evolution. Has there been one in the last century?
Nope, lamarkianism was permanently disproven when the hereditary function of DNA was confirmed, though hardly anyone accepted it anymore by that time.
Anyway, I find it highly amusing, and slightly disturbing, how the creationists keep trying to get their idea* approved in the courts, instead of in the journals. Surely, if creationism is such a bastion of truth, can't they publish some of their discoveries based on ID? I don't recall the grand laboratories of the creationists ever contributing anything to science, but correct me if I'm wrong.
*I hesitate to call it even an idea, but I don't know a better word; theory and hypothesis having been discarded.
Nope, lamarkianism was permanently disproven when the hereditary function of DNA was confirmed, though hardly anyone accepted it anymore by that time.
Anyway, I find it highly amusing, and slightly disturbing, how the creationists keep trying to get their idea* approved in the courts, instead of in the journals. Surely, if creationism is such a bastion of truth, can't they publish some of their discoveries based on ID? I don't recall the grand laboratories of the creationists ever contributing anything to science, but correct me if I'm wrong.
*I hesitate to call it even an idea, but I don't know a better word; theory and hypothesis having been discarded.
QUOTE ( (Steveo @ Jun 19 2008+ 10:00 PM))
I am curious of what competing scientific theory could be taught with evolution. Has there been one in the last century?
QUOTE (Alcari+ or near June 20 at 1:00 AM)
Nope, lamarkianism was permanently disproven
...
I don't recall the grand laboratories of the creationists ever contributing anything to science, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Doubly wrong, I'd say, Alacri. Creationists are represented amply as known scientists of the past.
But more to the point, do you recall the definition of tropism?
If not, it is unlikely Wikipedia would screw it up too badly. I was reading somewhere about the wind as selective response in plants {In animals, one supposes, Lamarkism might be more problematic.}. I can't recall where, now.
Anyway, to Steveo's point\question...
Here, There Is Reference #nine.
Although Darwin's monophyletic view of life's history has reigned as the dominant theory of the history of life during most of the twentieth century, a number of biologists now question that view on evidential grounds. These scientists now see the present diversity and disparity of organisms as having originated from many separate ancestral forms and lines of descent. Those favoring a so-called polyphyletic or multiple separate origins view of life's history now cite evidence from paleontology, embryology, biochemistry, and molecular biology in support of their view. [9]
9. C. Schwabe and G. W. Warr, "A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic Potential Hypothesis," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27 (1984): 465-85;
C. Schwabe, "On the Basis of the Studies of the Origins of Life," Origins of Life 15 (1985): 213-16;
W. G. Inglis, "Evolutionary Waves: Patterns in the Origins of Animal Phyla," Australian Journal of Zoology 33 (1985): 153-78; P. Senapathy, Independent Birth of Organisms (Madison, Wisc.: Genome Press, 1994);
M. S. Gordon, "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay," Biology and Philosophy 14 (1999): 331-48; W. F. Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science 284 (1999): 2124-28;
W. F. Doolittle, "The Nature of the Universal Ancestor and the Evolution of the Proteome," Current Opinion in Structural Biology 10 (2000): 355-58;
D. W. Thompson, On Growth and Form (Reprint; New York: Dover, 1992);
P. A. Nelson, On Common Descent (Chicago: Evolutionary Monographs, 2004); D. T. Anderson, "Origins and Relationships among the Animal Phyla," Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 106 (1982): 151-66;
J. R. Nursall, "On the Origins of the Major Groups of Animals," Evolution 16 (1962): 118-23; G. Webster and B. C. Goodwin, "The Origin of Species: A Structuralist Approach," Journal of Social and Biological Structures 5 (1982): 15-47.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution is a pretty broad term for the unenlightened to play mischief.
MrB.
I, of course, would apologize for my part in that unenlightenment.
QUOTE
All challenges to the Act failed, but Scopes never paid a dime.
In fact, I think a fine was paid. But you are right, as I recall, the hundred dollars or whatever was to be imposed by the jury, and not the judge... the technicallity that kept the case from going all the way to the SCOTUS as the prosecution wanted (or was it the defense?). Scopes never paid it, but a newspaper 'back East' paid it, I think; as all part of a publicity stunt.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 18 2008, 04:16 AM)
They can disagree in a SCIENTIFIC way eventually. Science itself cannot defeat or replace religion (except for the nutty ones refusing actual science). So at some point, the courts will step in and prevent it being used as a weapon AGAINST religion. If Science and the scientists kept Atheism out of play, this would not happen, but they will not, and it will happen as sure as the sun will rise and PuckSR will complain about this post.
This isn't science attacking religion, this is religion attacking science and science defending itself.
Heck, this isn't even about science defending itself, it's about society demanding that our children be shielded from the religious beliefs of others! The US Constitution gives us freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. Under no circumstances should someone else's religion be pushed on my children. Schools should never say there is a god, just as they should never say that there is not a god, whether in the science classroom or in the history classroom or anywhere else.
I will agree that no scientific theory should ever be taught as absolute fact. Students should be encouraged to think critically, to challenge the interpretation of the evidence, even to challenge the evidence itself. In the case of evolution, there may in fact be significant gaps in understanding or even invalid conclusions just waiting for some student to leap into action and win themselves a Nobel Prize. Students must be taught, however, that a weakness in a theory does not invalidate the entire theory, and that any other explanation that attempts to answer these weaknesses must be examined equally as critically. Any explanation that includes "goddidit" is unacceptable.
Edit: To claim that there is undeniable third-party influence in the course of an organism's evolution is not what I'm arguing against. Man, for example, has interfered in the evolutionary development of many new species. As of now there is no such evidence in our own evolutionary development, but if such evidence were to be found, then I agree it should be published. If, for example, life on Earth was engineered by aliens, I think science would really want to know about it! However, going from the claim that there was third party involvement to identifying that third party is where I draw the line. Without any evidence of who or what that third party was, it is unacceptable to say "aliensdidit" just as much as it is unacceptable to say "goddidit".
This isn't science attacking religion, this is religion attacking science and science defending itself.
Heck, this isn't even about science defending itself, it's about society demanding that our children be shielded from the religious beliefs of others! The US Constitution gives us freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. Under no circumstances should someone else's religion be pushed on my children. Schools should never say there is a god, just as they should never say that there is not a god, whether in the science classroom or in the history classroom or anywhere else.
I will agree that no scientific theory should ever be taught as absolute fact. Students should be encouraged to think critically, to challenge the interpretation of the evidence, even to challenge the evidence itself. In the case of evolution, there may in fact be significant gaps in understanding or even invalid conclusions just waiting for some student to leap into action and win themselves a Nobel Prize. Students must be taught, however, that a weakness in a theory does not invalidate the entire theory, and that any other explanation that attempts to answer these weaknesses must be examined equally as critically. Any explanation that includes "goddidit" is unacceptable.
Edit: To claim that there is undeniable third-party influence in the course of an organism's evolution is not what I'm arguing against. Man, for example, has interfered in the evolutionary development of many new species. As of now there is no such evidence in our own evolutionary development, but if such evidence were to be found, then I agree it should be published. If, for example, life on Earth was engineered by aliens, I think science would really want to know about it! However, going from the claim that there was third party involvement to identifying that third party is where I draw the line. Without any evidence of who or what that third party was, it is unacceptable to say "aliensdidit" just as much as it is unacceptable to say "goddidit".
QUOTE
Doubly wrong, I'd say, Alacri. Creationists are represented amply as known scientists of the past.
I never said anything about creationists as people (well, I did, but that was meant as a figure of speech). Creationists are just as capable of being good scientists (on most fields) as anyone else. Let me restate my previous claim with a little poetic freedom.
I don't recall the "theory" of creationism ever contributing anything to science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Doubly wrong, I'd say, Alacri. Creationists are represented amply as known scientists of the past. |
I never said anything about creationists as people (well, I did, but that was meant as a figure of speech). Creationists are just as capable of being good scientists (on most fields) as anyone else. Let me restate my previous claim with a little poetic freedom.
I don't recall the "theory" of creationism ever contributing anything to science.
But more to the point, do you recall the definition of tropism?
Hmm, it's been a while since I took any biology (about 7 years), but tropism doesn't change an organism's DNA, does it? Wikipedia, while slightly lacking, seems to agree with me
Two results of - 38
Tip: Save time by hitting the return key instead of clicking on "search"
Medical Hypotheses : Neo-Lamarckian medicine - Published by Elsevier
The above procedure for estimating meiotically-heritable epigenetic signals places neo-Lamarckian evolution on firm theoretical ground. ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987703003293 -
http://arcaneknowledge.org/histschol/lamarck.htm
Sharply differentiating the personal theories of Lamarck from those of the so-called neo-Lamarckians does not prohibit historians from legitimately creating a category called Lamarckism or neo-Lamarckism. Indeed, such a definition has proved essential to most discussions of the intellectual history of evolution. As noted, the most common definition of (neo-) Lamarckism has centered on a belief in the inheritance of acquired traits. When this is taken as an essential characteristic, Lamarckism can encompass such diverse thinkers as Cope, Packard, Spencer, and even Darwin himself.
Even if we admit that there was great diversity of opinion among the Lamarckians, the mere act of defining Lamarckism along these lines has the effect of setting Darwinism in tension with itself. This internal tension is obvious in Darlington’s study,
which characterizes Darwinism as a “mixed theory” or a “double standard of explanation”, owing to Darwin’s acknowledgment of both natural selection and soft inheritance as causal factors.[13]
This contradiction is particularly acute in Darlington’s view, since he regards Lamarckism as “directed” evolution, in contrast with random, accidental natural selection. Peter Bowler introduces more sophisticated distinctions among non-Darwinian evolutionists, but continues to identify “Lamarckism” or the “inheritance of acquired characteristics” as an alternative to Darwin. Bowler distinguishes Lamarckism from “orthogenesis” (borrowing German biologist Theodor Eimer’s term)
on the basis that the former is directed by adaptive goals, but the latter is directed by non-adaptive goals. In this view, Cope and Packard are Lamarckians, but Hyatt’s theory is really orthogenesis.[14] Spencer is similarly distinguished from the volitional theories of Cope.
These distinctions somewhat clarify the relationship between Lamarckism and various forms of teleology, but do not abolish the implications of setting belief in soft inheritance in opposition to Darwin. Darwin’s progressive emphasis on factors other than natural selection constitutes a retreat, and attention directed toward soft inheritance as a mechanism for creating variations indicates the declining relevance of Darwinism.
Definitions of Lamarckism often contain the idea that Lamarckism was teleological or compatible with teleology, at least with respect to adaptive ends. These constructions usually assume that natural selection is inherently anti-teleological, so Lamarckism offered evolutionists a way to keep a sense of direction and purpose in natural history. ...
[3] C.D. Darlington, Darwin’s Place in History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959), 14.
[13] Darlington, op. cit., 67.
[14] Peter J. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1983), 119.
Tip: Save time by hitting the return key instead of clicking on "search"
Medical Hypotheses : Neo-Lamarckian medicine - Published by Elsevier
The above procedure for estimating meiotically-heritable epigenetic signals places neo-Lamarckian evolution on firm theoretical ground. ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987703003293 -
http://arcaneknowledge.org/histschol/lamarck.htm
Sharply differentiating the personal theories of Lamarck from those of the so-called neo-Lamarckians does not prohibit historians from legitimately creating a category called Lamarckism or neo-Lamarckism. Indeed, such a definition has proved essential to most discussions of the intellectual history of evolution. As noted, the most common definition of (neo-) Lamarckism has centered on a belief in the inheritance of acquired traits. When this is taken as an essential characteristic, Lamarckism can encompass such diverse thinkers as Cope, Packard, Spencer, and even Darwin himself.
Even if we admit that there was great diversity of opinion among the Lamarckians, the mere act of defining Lamarckism along these lines has the effect of setting Darwinism in tension with itself. This internal tension is obvious in Darlington’s study,
which characterizes Darwinism as a “mixed theory” or a “double standard of explanation”, owing to Darwin’s acknowledgment of both natural selection and soft inheritance as causal factors.[13]
This contradiction is particularly acute in Darlington’s view, since he regards Lamarckism as “directed” evolution, in contrast with random, accidental natural selection. Peter Bowler introduces more sophisticated distinctions among non-Darwinian evolutionists, but continues to identify “Lamarckism” or the “inheritance of acquired characteristics” as an alternative to Darwin. Bowler distinguishes Lamarckism from “orthogenesis” (borrowing German biologist Theodor Eimer’s term)
on the basis that the former is directed by adaptive goals, but the latter is directed by non-adaptive goals. In this view, Cope and Packard are Lamarckians, but Hyatt’s theory is really orthogenesis.[14] Spencer is similarly distinguished from the volitional theories of Cope.
These distinctions somewhat clarify the relationship between Lamarckism and various forms of teleology, but do not abolish the implications of setting belief in soft inheritance in opposition to Darwin. Darwin’s progressive emphasis on factors other than natural selection constitutes a retreat, and attention directed toward soft inheritance as a mechanism for creating variations indicates the declining relevance of Darwinism.
Definitions of Lamarckism often contain the idea that Lamarckism was teleological or compatible with teleology, at least with respect to adaptive ends. These constructions usually assume that natural selection is inherently anti-teleological, so Lamarckism offered evolutionists a way to keep a sense of direction and purpose in natural history. ...
[3] C.D. Darlington, Darwin’s Place in History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959), 14.
[13] Darlington, op. cit., 67.
[14] Peter J. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1983), 119.
I'll say one thing for the creationists! Their evolutionary approach to getting their crap accepted just might provide proof of evolution itself!
They keep randomly changing their technique little by little and maybe one of these days, (god forbid ) they will succeed.
FGG
They keep randomly changing their technique little by little and maybe one of these days, (god forbid
) they will succeed.FGG
I hope they do succeed because success will likely mean dropping some of their illusions. There is an odd sort of justice in the way they are forced to dismantle more and more of their own deceptions as time passes.
You have to remember that only Reality is what exists. Anything else that Humans invent for their own mental gratification has absolutely no meaning whatsoever in the rest of existence. Only when people let themselves be convinced by the self-trickery of others do such things as 'religion' appear.
Anything that does not correspond to what is real has to be almost constantly shoved down people's throats, otherwise Reality simply returns to the normal functioning process of all things.
It does not matter what name is given, as long as the understanding correlates with what is Real. 'Creationism' in any form whatsoever is a complete fallacy. The only NON~creationism involves the understanding that existence has always existed because, Duh ~ that is what exists!
g.
Anything that does not correspond to what is real has to be almost constantly shoved down people's throats, otherwise Reality simply returns to the normal functioning process of all things.
It does not matter what name is given, as long as the understanding correlates with what is Real. 'Creationism' in any form whatsoever is a complete fallacy. The only NON~creationism involves the understanding that existence has always existed because, Duh ~ that is what exists!
g.
QUOTE
when people let themselves be convinced by the self-trickery of others do such things as 'religion' appear.
Let us call them 'assumptions', shall we?
I'll say one thing for the
They keep
) they will [not] succeed.QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 22 2008, 12:50 AM)
Let us call them 'assumptions', shall we?
Religion, assumptions, same thing.
Ah, so 'god' (your ego) does not want people to succeed, now?
The 'randomly changing technique' you refer to is called 'science'. As our collective knowledge grows, so do the techniques for accumulating more. That's how it works. Also, it is how YOU work. Despite an unbounded willingness to prove how primitive your thoughts are, you still manage to use a tool of science (computer) to post your gruntings on. This is the closest thing to a 'miracle' I have seen in a long time.
g.
Religion, assumptions, same thing.
QUOTE
They keep randomly changing their technique little by little and maybe one of these days, (god forbidbless ) they will [not] succeed.
Ah, so 'god' (your ego) does not want people to succeed, now?
The 'randomly changing technique' you refer to is called 'science'. As our collective knowledge grows, so do the techniques for accumulating more. That's how it works. Also, it is how YOU work. Despite an unbounded willingness to prove how primitive your thoughts are, you still manage to use a tool of science (computer) to post your gruntings on. This is the closest thing to a 'miracle' I have seen in a long time.
g.
>>> Religion, assumptions, same thing. <<<
It is philosophy {or a law professor} to the rescue, then?! Showtopic= 20315------->
See related quote ------>Showtopic= 20875 58 pages apart by Phillip E. Johnson.
Because Darwinists take for granted that "relationship" is equivalent to common ancestry, they assume that the molecular classifications confirm the "fact of evolution" by confirming the existence of something which by definition is caused by evolution. They also tend to assume that the particular relationships determined by taxonomists were "predicted" by Darwin's theory. When these fallacious assumptions are made, it seems that a "99 per cent" molecular similarity between men and apes confirms Darwinism decisively.
The misunderstanding is fundamental. Darwin did not invent classification or reform its practice. His contribution was to provide an explanation in materialistic terms of how the categories came about and why the classifiers were right in their instinct that the "types" are real natural entities and not arbitrary sorting systems (such as a library use for books). Pre-Darwinian classifiers also were aware that humans are physically very much like the anthropoid apes. That is why the creationist Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy, unhesitatingly included humans among the primates. The genetic similarity confirms Linnaeus, not Darwin.
This post has been edited by MisterBelfry on May 31 2008, 08:58 AM
>>> a time-constrained breakthrough <<<
Posted: June 2 2008, 07:04 AM < #345706 >
fallacious --------> particular relationships determined by taxonomists were "predicted" by Darwin's theory... postdicted maybe, but now we have the biochemical challenge of Behe, and the junkyard mentality challenge by Hoyle\Yockey towards the neo-darwin revival of natural selection by Sir Fisher.
>>> Que Darwin! <<<
No, S. Kauffmann has it right when he notes with a critic of early darwin not neo-darwin that, "First, Darwin's theory... does not explain the genesis of forms, but the trimmings of the forms, once they are generated, Rather like achieving an apple tree by trimming off all the branches, said a late-nineteenth-century skeptic."
It is philosophy {or a law professor} to the rescue, then?! Showtopic= 20315------->
See related quote ------>Showtopic= 20875 58 pages apart by Phillip E. Johnson.
Because Darwinists take for granted that "relationship" is equivalent to common ancestry, they assume that the molecular classifications confirm the "fact of evolution" by confirming the existence of something which by definition is caused by evolution. They also tend to assume that the particular relationships determined by taxonomists were "predicted" by Darwin's theory. When these fallacious assumptions are made, it seems that a "99 per cent" molecular similarity between men and apes confirms Darwinism decisively.
The misunderstanding is fundamental. Darwin did not invent classification or reform its practice. His contribution was to provide an explanation in materialistic terms of how the categories came about and why the classifiers were right in their instinct that the "types" are real natural entities and not arbitrary sorting systems (such as a library use for books). Pre-Darwinian classifiers also were aware that humans are physically very much like the anthropoid apes. That is why the creationist Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy, unhesitatingly included humans among the primates. The genetic similarity confirms Linnaeus, not Darwin.
This post has been edited by MisterBelfry on May 31 2008, 08:58 AM
>>> a time-constrained breakthrough <<<
Posted: June 2 2008, 07:04 AM < #345706 >
fallacious --------> particular relationships determined by taxonomists were "predicted" by Darwin's theory... postdicted maybe, but now we have the biochemical challenge of Behe, and the junkyard mentality challenge by Hoyle\Yockey towards the neo-darwin revival of natural selection by Sir Fisher.
>>> Que Darwin! <<<
No, S. Kauffmann has it right when he notes with a critic of early darwin not neo-darwin that, "First, Darwin's theory... does not explain the genesis of forms, but the trimmings of the forms, once they are generated, Rather like achieving an apple tree by trimming off all the branches, said a late-nineteenth-century skeptic."
Neo-lamarkism, if it exists, only applies to single-celled organisms. There's still a small group of scientists who argue in favor of it, but it's been mostly discredited. I don't consider myself an expert in the field, but it seems rather unlikely.
CONTINUATION From Showtopic= 20315---------->
Rather than depict Darwin’s occasional search for intrinsic causes or Lamarckian mechanisms as a betrayal of principle or a loss of nerve, Moore sees these speculations as no less essential to Darwinism, thus Christian Darwinians are true Darwinians because of, not in spite of their teleology.
When Darwinism is closely identified with natural selection, Weismann often becomes the central Darwinian figure, and the neo-Lamarckian versus neo-Darwinian debate is defined by reactions to Weismann. Barthélemy-Madaule and Bowler agree that it was only after Weismann challenged the generally accepted principle of soft inheritance and insisted that natural selection alone explained evolution that evolutionists began to strenuously affirm non-selective means of adaptation.[28] Identifying negative responses to Weismann with an anti-Darwinian reaction results in a profoundly non-Darwinian picture of late nineteenth century evolutionary thought, particularly in North America. Numbers has noted that virtually no historian names any Americans on the “neo-Darwinian” side of the Weismann debate, since there were none who would enlist natural selection as the sole cause of evolution.[29] Yet Numbers is reluctant to depict
the Weismann affair as polarizing the scientific community, and instead points to the similarities between neo-Lamarckians and neo-Darwinians, who were both equally concerned with finding naturalistic external causes of variation. Also, there was a wide variety of opinion among members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), very few of whom could be strictly considered neo-Lamarckians, and even these few did not collaborate as a “school”. He cites the neo-Lamarckism historian Theodore Greenfield as determining that there is “no evidence…that they coordinated their efforts, assigned special tasks among themselves, or pursued their special areas in relation to other’s choices”.[30] Although Numbers emphasizes how splintered the American scientific community was regarding evolutionary mechanisms, he does not challenge Bowler’s basic conclusion that natural selection played a minor role in American scientific discourse.
[27]James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979), 265.
[11] Madeleine Barthélemy-Madaule, Lamarck the Mythical Precursor, translated from the French by M.H. Shank (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982), 102.
[28] Barthélemy-Madaule, op. cit., 79; Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1984), 187.
[18] Ronald L. Numbers, Darwinism Comes to America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1998), 22.
[29] Numbers, op. cit., 36.
[30] Ibid., 34.
http://arcaneknowledge.org/histschol/lamarck.htm
Rather than depict Darwin’s occasional search for intrinsic causes or Lamarckian mechanisms as a betrayal of principle or a loss of nerve, Moore sees these speculations as no less essential to Darwinism, thus Christian Darwinians are true Darwinians because of, not in spite of their teleology.
When Darwinism is closely identified with natural selection, Weismann often becomes the central Darwinian figure, and the neo-Lamarckian versus neo-Darwinian debate is defined by reactions to Weismann. Barthélemy-Madaule and Bowler agree that it was only after Weismann challenged the generally accepted principle of soft inheritance and insisted that natural selection alone explained evolution that evolutionists began to strenuously affirm non-selective means of adaptation.[28] Identifying negative responses to Weismann with an anti-Darwinian reaction results in a profoundly non-Darwinian picture of late nineteenth century evolutionary thought, particularly in North America. Numbers has noted that virtually no historian names any Americans on the “neo-Darwinian” side of the Weismann debate, since there were none who would enlist natural selection as the sole cause of evolution.[29] Yet Numbers is reluctant to depict
the Weismann affair as polarizing the scientific community, and instead points to the similarities between neo-Lamarckians and neo-Darwinians, who were both equally concerned with finding naturalistic external causes of variation. Also, there was a wide variety of opinion among members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), very few of whom could be strictly considered neo-Lamarckians, and even these few did not collaborate as a “school”. He cites the neo-Lamarckism historian Theodore Greenfield as determining that there is “no evidence…that they coordinated their efforts, assigned special tasks among themselves, or pursued their special areas in relation to other’s choices”.[30] Although Numbers emphasizes how splintered the American scientific community was regarding evolutionary mechanisms, he does not challenge Bowler’s basic conclusion that natural selection played a minor role in American scientific discourse.
[27]James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979), 265.
[11] Madeleine Barthélemy-Madaule, Lamarck the Mythical Precursor, translated from the French by M.H. Shank (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982), 102.
[28] Barthélemy-Madaule, op. cit., 79; Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1984), 187.
[18] Ronald L. Numbers, Darwinism Comes to America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1998), 22.
[29] Numbers, op. cit., 36.
[30] Ibid., 34.
http://arcaneknowledge.org/histschol/lamarck.htm
QUOTE
It is philosophy {or a law professor} to the rescue, then?!
It is only people who need to be 'rescued' from their own misconceptions that lead to self-destructive behaviour. Whatever name is given, we are talking about people and how they fail to cope in a world they can no longer understand.
g.
>>> It is only people who need to be 'rescued' from their own misconceptions that lead to self-destructive behaviour <<<
What are you talking about ...global warming?
What are you talking about ...global warming?
QUOTE (Alcari June 23+)
Neo-lamarkism, if it exists, only applies to single-celled organisms. ...
I don't consider myself an expert in the field, but it seems rather unlikely.
New Scientist #2664:
The realisation that individuals can acquire characteristics through interaction with their environment and then pass these on to their offspring may force us to rethink evolutionary theory. While examples of this "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" are only just emerging in mammals, there is long-standing and widespread evidence for it in plants and fungi. That may explain why botanists are much more ready to acknowledge and promote the idea that epigenetic inheritance has a significant role in evolution, whereas zoologists are generally reluctant to do so, says Eva Jablonka from Tel Aviv University, Israel.
That looks set to change. "There was a trickle of findings of epigenetic inheritance in animals through the 20th century, and it is turning into a flood about now," says Russell Bonduriansky, at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. One of his favourite recent examples involves the water flea, daphnia.
...
For Bonduriansky the accumulating evidence calls for a radical rethink of how evolution works. Jablonka, too, believes that "Lamarckian" mechanisms should now be integrated into evolutionary theory, which should focus on mechanisms, rather than units, of inheritance. "This would be very significant," she says. "It would reintroduce development, in a very direct and strong sense, into heredity and hence evolution. It would mean the pre-synthesis view of evolution, which was very diverse and very rich, can return, but with molecular mechanisms attached."
I don't consider myself an expert in the field, but it seems rather unlikely.
New Scientist #2664:
The realisation that individuals can acquire characteristics through interaction with their environment and then pass these on to their offspring may force us to rethink evolutionary theory. While examples of this "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" are only just emerging in mammals, there is long-standing and widespread evidence for it in plants and fungi. That may explain why botanists are much more ready to acknowledge and promote the idea that epigenetic inheritance has a significant role in evolution, whereas zoologists are generally reluctant to do so, says Eva Jablonka from Tel Aviv University, Israel.
That looks set to change. "There was a trickle of findings of epigenetic inheritance in animals through the 20th century, and it is turning into a flood about now," says Russell Bonduriansky, at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. One of his favourite recent examples involves the water flea, daphnia.
...
For Bonduriansky the accumulating evidence calls for a radical rethink of how evolution works. Jablonka, too, believes that "Lamarckian" mechanisms should now be integrated into evolutionary theory, which should focus on mechanisms, rather than units, of inheritance. "This would be very significant," she says. "It would reintroduce development, in a very direct and strong sense, into heredity and hence evolution. It would mean the pre-synthesis view of evolution, which was very diverse and very rich, can return, but with molecular mechanisms attached."
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 25 2008, 01:48 AM)
>>> It is only people who need to be 'rescued' from their own misconceptions that lead to self-destructive behaviour <<<
What are you talking about ...global warming?
No, I'm talking about peoples' misconceptions that lead to self-destructive behaviour.
g.
What are you talking about ...global warming?
No, I'm talking about peoples' misconceptions that lead to self-destructive behaviour.
g.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 16 2008, 11:50 PM)
New York Times article
If you don't want to read the article, I will try to summarize.
Creationism got shot down by the Scopes Monkey Trial
Creation Science got shot down by the Supreme Court
Intelligent Design got shot down in Dover
So now, the "born again" creationism boils down to a few choice words...
"strengths and weaknesses"
It isn't about creationism at all, they just want teachers to instruct students about the "strengths and weaknesses" of 'Evolution'.
That sounds like a darn good idea, we should always teach kids about weaknesses with theories.
.....................................................................................................................................................
Here is the problem, and I finally want to expound on this in a different light.
Evolution IS NOT a scientific theory in the popular sense. I am not around my own little biologist right now, so I cannot double check this with her.
Evolution is a natural phenomenon.
When biologists use the term "Evolutionary Theory", they are using it in the same sense that Engineers use the term "Control Theory". In fact, it is EXACTLY like "Control Theory"(you might know it as feedback systems)
It isn't that there is any doubt about the known facts of the "theory", it is that the entire topic is not(and probably will not ever conclusively) be quantified.
Let me make it clear.
The PID controller is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN.
Evolution via natural selection and mutation is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN
However, we never know when a new layer will be discovered.
Of course the question can become, "Who/what created the PID controller" and what influence upon the timing of when it was created or in effect and to which applications or to what extent is it applied, and how do variations and uncertainties in these affect systems that have only been partly subject to such controls? (In other words, if we have a PID controller with precisely determined parameters controlling a physical system, then the state of that system still depends upon when such controls were put into place and what unknowns existed before this ... we could assume ideally some likely exponential decay to the significance of these factors over time, but this isn't a very realistic model as these influences simply diffuse as energies outside the system instead - also what determined the parameters of the PID controller?).
A good scientist recognizes what he knows and what he doesn't know and there are strengths (which I personally consider undeniably explainatory) to evolutionary theory, but on the other hand it has some gaping holes as well, - for example, if the evolutionary success of a life form is dependent upon its actions with respect to an environment, then to what extent do such intelligent actions play a role in evolution?
Notice that it would appear obvious intelligence plays a large part, if it isn't one of the most significant factors in evolution. Things don't sit around idly waiting for nature to toss another asteroid around or flip a coin to decide whether there's a feast or famine.
If we had two identical forms of life, in identical environments, but there existed an element of uncertainty in their actions, would their evolutionary traits diverge over time, I'd have to say this should be the case and the question then becomes one over to what extent such "life" could inherently possess such uncertainties relative to a deterministic physical environment. If physics continually needs to refer to subjective observations, then we have physical evidence that a deterministic objective view may be impossible to construct. (Not that we couldn't closely approach such a model, but from the evidence, it appears very unlikely we'll be able to remove such uncertainties and observational dependencies from supplying unknowns to a common objective model of physics)
So when people refer to intelligent design, consider that though we may not immediately recognize that evolutionary theory is a product of intelligent design, it took a lot of rather insightful people to recognize it as describing many properties of life. Though I'm certain there are things that extend beyond logic and closed deterministic systems, and that "random stuff happens" science appears unable to prove anything other than a pervasive intelligence or logic exists to the universe because that's the (figurative) eyes it sees the universe through and in some ways it's just as easy to ask how anything other than intelligent design could exist because it's only via intelligence that we understand and recognize any of it (admittedly some of this intelligence could be interpreted to very low level and instinctual, but I'd assume that if something highly intelligent existed it would be composed of subsets that could appear less complex).
If you don't want to read the article, I will try to summarize.
Creationism got shot down by the Scopes Monkey Trial
Creation Science got shot down by the Supreme Court
Intelligent Design got shot down in Dover
So now, the "born again" creationism boils down to a few choice words...
"strengths and weaknesses"
It isn't about creationism at all, they just want teachers to instruct students about the "strengths and weaknesses" of 'Evolution'.
That sounds like a darn good idea, we should always teach kids about weaknesses with theories.
.....................................................................................................................................................
Here is the problem, and I finally want to expound on this in a different light.
Evolution IS NOT a scientific theory in the popular sense. I am not around my own little biologist right now, so I cannot double check this with her.
Evolution is a natural phenomenon.
When biologists use the term "Evolutionary Theory", they are using it in the same sense that Engineers use the term "Control Theory". In fact, it is EXACTLY like "Control Theory"(you might know it as feedback systems)
It isn't that there is any doubt about the known facts of the "theory", it is that the entire topic is not(and probably will not ever conclusively) be quantified.
Let me make it clear.
The PID controller is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN.
Evolution via natural selection and mutation is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN
However, we never know when a new layer will be discovered.
Of course the question can become, "Who/what created the PID controller" and what influence upon the timing of when it was created or in effect and to which applications or to what extent is it applied, and how do variations and uncertainties in these affect systems that have only been partly subject to such controls? (In other words, if we have a PID controller with precisely determined parameters controlling a physical system, then the state of that system still depends upon when such controls were put into place and what unknowns existed before this ... we could assume ideally some likely exponential decay to the significance of these factors over time, but this isn't a very realistic model as these influences simply diffuse as energies outside the system instead - also what determined the parameters of the PID controller?).
A good scientist recognizes what he knows and what he doesn't know and there are strengths (which I personally consider undeniably explainatory) to evolutionary theory, but on the other hand it has some gaping holes as well, - for example, if the evolutionary success of a life form is dependent upon its actions with respect to an environment, then to what extent do such intelligent actions play a role in evolution?
Notice that it would appear obvious intelligence plays a large part, if it isn't one of the most significant factors in evolution. Things don't sit around idly waiting for nature to toss another asteroid around or flip a coin to decide whether there's a feast or famine.
If we had two identical forms of life, in identical environments, but there existed an element of uncertainty in their actions, would their evolutionary traits diverge over time, I'd have to say this should be the case and the question then becomes one over to what extent such "life" could inherently possess such uncertainties relative to a deterministic physical environment. If physics continually needs to refer to subjective observations, then we have physical evidence that a deterministic objective view may be impossible to construct. (Not that we couldn't closely approach such a model, but from the evidence, it appears very unlikely we'll be able to remove such uncertainties and observational dependencies from supplying unknowns to a common objective model of physics)
So when people refer to intelligent design, consider that though we may not immediately recognize that evolutionary theory is a product of intelligent design, it took a lot of rather insightful people to recognize it as describing many properties of life. Though I'm certain there are things that extend beyond logic and closed deterministic systems, and that "random stuff happens" science appears unable to prove anything other than a pervasive intelligence or logic exists to the universe because that's the (figurative) eyes it sees the universe through and in some ways it's just as easy to ask how anything other than intelligent design could exist because it's only via intelligence that we understand and recognize any of it (admittedly some of this intelligence could be interpreted to very low level and instinctual, but I'd assume that if something highly intelligent existed it would be composed of subsets that could appear less complex).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.