No, it did not. I've been reading about this of course. It's hard not to. It has hit the scientific and general press in a big way. Leading to lots and lots of arguments in the scientific community. In a good way in my opinion. Is it a missing link? It appears to be. Did these guys rush this into publication to make a splash during the OTOOS anniversary? Probably. It is still a compelling finding.

Well at least this nutjob McLeroy won't be board chairman anymore. Although he'll still be on the board.

Allies: Christian beliefs cost Texas schools chief his post | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

An interesting article by Scientific American earlier this year: The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom: Scientific American; http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...to-creationist

Ha Ha! Another tie to our ape cousins.

GMANews.TV - Ha-Ha! Ape study traces evolution of laughter - Lifestyle - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Philippine News

Fantastic. Sounds like our primate cousins have more of a sense of humor than many people that I know! ;-)

Cool!

Time Tree :: The Timescale of Life

So if this can happen in 10 years, think about what can happen in 1,000 years. Or 100,000 thousand years. Or 10 million years. Natural selection happens.

Evolution can occur within 10 years

There's a new survey out on evolution. Pretty interesting reading.

Origins: July 2009 Archives

Darwin and unnatural disbelief : Opinion L.A. : Los Angeles Times

Acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution didn't necessarily correlate with a rejection of creationism. The three countries with the greatest proportion of people (43%) believing that life on Earth was created by a god and has always existed in its current form were the United States, South Africa, and India.

But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution." Where were the believers in evolution most likely to live? India, with 77%. And we wonder why that country is renowned for its good education, especially in the sciences--and why this country historically tests in the mediocre realm.

This story made the general press in a big way. 70 leading paleontologists visited the Creation Museum. Wish I could have been there to see it.

Scientists visit Creation Museum: A culture clash for the 'ages' - Faith & Reason

Comments?

The U.S. Daily, all the news, every day.

Well, you know my views on this quite well. I will say this about that article -- they do a marvelous job of writing in a fashion that appears logical and rational, thus implying (incorrectly) that scientific thinking underlies the jibberish, when all they are doing is making specious comments that "prove" appear to prove their point. It is skilled writing -- PR mastery in fact -- while absolute BS from a scientific perspective.

I went to this museum last year. I agree with the woman who said most mainstream Christians wouldn't agree with everything they saw; I certainly didn't. To me, it came across as more of an "answer" to others (scientists) who've spent years telling fundamentalist Christians that their views can't possibly be correct, than a presentation of information.

I do not agree with whoever said that children shouldn't see it because they might question what they'd been taught. I don't know about you other parents, but I hope all my kids go through life questioning what they've been taught. So many "facts" are later disproved, so much of "history" is solely the conqueror's perspective, language is always changing, etc. You can't mature if you don't ask questions.

The problem with this museum is they only want you asking a certain set of questions. And, to be fair, some scientists are equally prejudiced.

A rather nice rebuttal I'd say.

Pat Buchanan takes on evolution with his usual level of scholarship « Notes from Evil Bender

I guess that's a reasoned response. But to put forth an expensive monument unencumbered by reason or logic only makes the situation worse IMHO.

Yes, I agree with this. But I've seen this argument used way too many times to raise and even manufacture 'doubts' about the Theory of Evolution. It seems that creationists, at least lately, focus solely on attempting to cast doubt where no doubt exists within the scientific community.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I think I'll stick to the side of reasoned inquiry.

I mean that it's OK to most of the Christian scholars I've met to debate issues such as whether a day (in Genesis) meant the same thing back then as it does today, or whether it took the same length of time. It isn't OK to those same folks to debate whether the book of Genesis is allegorical.

Likewise, I've seen debate about whether hypotheses that begin with the assumption that there is a God are as valid as those that don't. I have heard what amounts to, "the minute you say 'God,' any scientific debate ceases to be a real debate."

Most of the scientists that I know will allow any underlying assumption as the basis of developing hypotheses, with one caveat. The hypotheses that derive must be testable and they must be falsifiable. All too often -- not uniformly, but typically -- those hypotheses that begin with the assumption of a deity are not falsifiable because circular reasoning gets into the middle of the logical process.

Interesting new survey. Here's a Times article on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/sc...=1&ref=science

And the actual survey site:

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

This goes back to our discussion about scientists and engineers not being known for their personability. 8-)

I don't know that the public's ignorance of science is as big a problem as the failure of the scientific community to engage the public on issues that they believe are of vital importance.

Virginia Woolf once wrote: "... to write a work of genius is almost always a feat of prodigious difficulty. ... Generally material circumstances are against it. Dogs will bark; people will interrupt; money must be made; health will break down. Further, accentuating all these difficulties and making them harder to bear is the world's notorious indifference. It does not ask people to write poems and novels and histories..."

Neither does it ask for science, I would argue, unless it is looking for something specific like a cure for cancer. To many people, knowledge acquired but not applied or built upon constitutes a waste of the time it took to collect it. No amount of theoretical "progress" can, by itself, overcome the world's "notorious indifference."

If I were in charge of scientific PR, every discovery of note would be publicized with some sort of "Here's how you can use this information:" blurb. At bottom, people are most interested in themselves and how things apply to themselves. OK, we sent a probe out and it found something... how does that affect my life today? There's pollution in a lake... what am I supposed to do about it? North Korea has nukes... could they hit me with them? etc.

That would improve the public's opinion of our nation's science programs - it would give the impression that scientists are working to better the lives of people, instead of just working to collect information for the sake of collecting information. I honestly don't see any other way, in today's sound bit culture, for scientists to make any headway in public education. The only news people want or have time for is the news they can use.

An interesting article on dachshunds. We have one and I was laughing about it yesterday that the poor little guy has stubby legs for a reason!

The Origin of Dachshunds and Other Dogs With Short Legs - US News and World Report

P.S. Kathryn, I want to spend a few minutes and comment on your observations in the above post. I will get to that soon. You hit the nail on the head, but as usual, I need to defend the poor downtrodden scientists a little. ;-)

LOL! Duh!

Evolution produces more 'beautiful' women | ajc.com

LOL! Indeed. See, this is one of those situations where the public can lose faith in the scientific community: too many resources are spent on proving the self-evident. Seems like every day we see some new groundbreaking announcement like "exercise leads to weight loss." :-( ;-)

Agree. Didn't need a scientific study to deduce the obvious!

This mixes evolution and climate change, but I thought it was an interesting read.

Itxxx8217;s not just the evolution denying Creationists! « Greenfyrexxx8217;s

Now LOLing at the irony of the example I chose:

Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin - TIME

I saw that! Evolution at work. More exertion means more calories are needed. Probably hormonally induced. I have been hitting the gym and running hard lately and I can tell you that I'm more hungry. If one wants to lose weight, one MUST maintain a similar calorie intake or less while increasing the level of exercise. It's admittedly hard to do.

Had to post this.

Kansas School District Bans T-Shirts Depicting Evolution | PEEK | AlterNet

"I was disappointed with the image on the shirt," said Sherry Melby, a band parent who teaches in the district. "I don't think evolution should be associated with our school."

I'm surprised this hasn't shown up here.

Fossils Shed New Light on Human Origins - WSJ.com

Fossils Shed New Light on Human Origins

By ROBERT LEE HOTZ
Researchers in the U.S. and Ethiopia on Thursday made public fossils from a 4.4-million-year-old human forebear they say reveals that the earliest human ancestors were more modern than scholars assumed and deepens the evolutionary gulf separating humankind from today's apes and chimpanzees.

The highlight of the extensive fossil trove is a female skeleton a million years older than the iconic bones of Lucy, the primitive female figure that has long symbolized humankind's beginnings.

What a wonderful discovery. I was going to post it, but really didn't think anyone was reading this thread anymore. The good thing about this find is that it is a very complete set of fossils. It's incredible how meticulous they were with this discovery, taking many years to collect as much as they did. Time magazine has this as a cover story. I'd also like to read some of the journal articles that will be published on this find.

I enjoy this thread! Bring on the science, I could do with some thought-provoking conversation. (y)

Spoken like a true tech person!

The October 2nd issue of the journal Science is dedicated to the new fossil discovery introduced by djm above. Here's a link:

Online Extras: Ardipithecus ramidus

Here's the introduction to this publication. The articles in this issue are all free after registration. Pretty cool. I've got some plane time coming up and plan to read the articles in flight.

In its 2 October 2009 issue, Science presents 11 papers, authored by a diverse international team, describing an early hominid species, Ardipithecus ramidus, and its environment. These 4.4 million year old hominid fossils sit within a critical early part of human evolution, and cast new and sometimes surprising light on the evolution of human limbs and locomotion, the habitats occupied by early hominids, and the nature of our last common ancestor with chimps.

Science is making access to this extraordinary set of materials FREE (non-subscribers require a simple registration). The complete collection, and abridged versions, are available FREE as PDF downloads for AAAS members, or may be purchased as reprints.

This is an extraordinary offer on the part of AAAS; I will certainly be taking advantage of it. It makes me regret that I allowed my AAAS membership to lapse some time ago.

Agreed. 'Some time ago' is more along the lines of 20 years for me..

LOL! 12 for me!

I loved reading Science back in graduate school. Then I graduated, married, got a job and had kids. Haven't had time since!

Im going to go off of this, me being a Christian man who worships regularly. This may get a little fire under someone but oh well, the truth hurts. In Genesis, the Bible tells us that God created man in his own image, now "in his own image" has been translated and reviewed differently from scholars over the years, but, I understand it to be a state of "perfection". This state of "perfection" or "in his own image" would not need to change from monkey's into some completely other species, but, evolve to whatever particular niche or habitat that that creature is in. Whether it be "man" or a parakeet, its going to adapt over time to its natural surroundings to better survive. God wouldnt create man as a monkey, give him a language, writing and reasoning skills. When was the last time you held an intelligent conversation with a chimpanzee? Bottom line, Bible says that God created man as he is today structurally, but we did all evolve intellectually and to our habitats/environments.

I don't think anyone on here has said that we evolved from monkeys. Nor will you find any evolutionary biologist making such a statement. It's a common misconception among non-scientists. The key to the evolution of hominids is that there was a common ancestor that was neither monkey nor human.

At any rate, your post is more philosophy than anything relating to science, so not sure how much more I can comment.

Lol.

TheSpec.com - Local - Women on the pill prefer pretty boys

Just read this. I'm not surprised at all. I have taken the pill on and off myself, throughout my adult life, and it affects all sorts of things.

For instance, there is a noticeable difference in the way things smell to me on the pill, v/s off the pill. Which changes my diet. If it also changed the way men smell to me, even at a level I was not consciously aware of, I could definitely see an issue. The way a guy smells is the first deciding factor, for me, in whether he goes from being attractive to sexy.

Incredible. These reactions are hormonally induced. At probably picograms per liter. So I guess it should not be surprising that supplementing with additional much larger doses hormones would affect ones behavior. And therefore effect direction of human evolution.

mriff, when I saw this on reddit this afternoon, I immediately thought of you and of this thread:

Darwin and culture : Article : Nature

Nice find. (y)

Nice. Kind of hits home doesn't it? I really liked the first paragraph. Thanks for posting Kathryn. (y)

The public reception of scientific ideas depends largely on two factors: people's ability to grasp factual information and the cultural lens through which that information is filtered. The former is what scientists tend to focus on when they give popular accounts of issues such as climate change. The assumption is that if they explain things very, very clearly, everyone will understand. Unfortunately, this is an uphill battle. The general public's average capacity to weigh facts and numbers is notoriously poor — although there is encouraging evidence that probabilistic reasoning can be improved by targeted education early in life

This is the kind of stuff that really drives me crazy. He goes off on what can only be described as a rant. Then at the end of his story, he admits to not being an expert on evolution. This is the clown that, along with Kirk Cameron, will hand out copies of 'On the Origin of Species' with his own forward on why evolution doesn't occur.

So my question is, why would US News and World Report give this guy any ink?

Ray Comfort Responds to Genie Scott on Creationist 'Origin of Species' - God & Country (usnews.com)

In case anyone else is interested.

"The Making of the Fittest: Natural Selection and the DNA... - Eventbrite

I doubt Ray Comfort will be joining in.

Mriff, the cynic in me says that the reason they're giving him some press is to sell magazines. The internet has killed the news magazines, and they will do just about anything to get noticed in today's world. They are no longer concerned with presenting the facts; they are concerned with survival.

Agreed, although I'd say the reason about 90% of news sources exist is to sell themselves, as opposed to news delivery. We need only look at the ratio of gossip/speculation to fact in most "news" stories to see this.

I want to know what a "traditional fossil" is, and if it implies the existence of non-traditional fossils. :-)

Well, you make a very good point there.

Thanks mriff, these are all excellent articles.

You're quite welcome!

I was able to join this webinar a few nights ago. It was very interesting. Sean Carroll is the author of several very good books on evolutionary development. I've read two of them. They are written for the lay person and have won quite a few awards. One of them it titled 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful, the New Science of Evo Devo'. I would suggest this to anyone who is interested in this subject.

There are additional webinars upcoming. You can see what's happening on Darwin150.com.

Here you go, mriff!

Obama kicks off massive science education effort! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

(y)

And this, which is even more compelling:

Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism' - CNN.com

I disagree completely with this point, but I enjoyed reading his point of view.

Really nice. Thanks for posting. I must say that I completely agree. I just hope it's not too late. I have three children in public school here in Florida and I can say that education in science leaves something to be desired. Four years of language arts and social studies are required for graduation, yet only three of science and oddly enough math. Much of the technology sector (that both you and I work in) that has been so successful is dependent on good science and technology education. But as far as I can tell, we are lagging behind other developed countries.

This is a step in the right direction. (y)

Wow. He is militant in his atheism. I don't think this is productive to the overall debate. I have his new book on my to do list. I've read much of his past body of work. I think he's a very good writer and can explain evolution in ways that are easily understandable. But he's a polarizing figure.

In the grand scheme of things though, it's only natural that there are those who think like Dawkins. He represents one end of a scale in which young earth creationists/strict belief in Genesis occupy the other end. And the vast majority of people are somewhere on the scale other than those two ends. Even most of those that believe in evolution.

Interesting read nonetheless. Thanks for posting!

I completely support this effort! Now my children can not only learn the concepts from me, but from their teacher as well.

Why Evolution Should Be Taught to Younger Kids | Newsweek Life | Newsweek.com

An interesting article.

Valerie Tarico: When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution

I call BS! I can still get down. Figuratively speaking of course. 8-)

'Dad dancing' may be the result of evolution, scientists claim - Telegraph

I just... I'm speechless.

And incredibly amused! "An apple that is going brown..."

That makes sense, haha. My boyfriend is a great dancer and he's gotten a couple women pregnant. Not on purpose though. Had issues with condom prickers.

The one that was planned was his beautiful daughter :)

I was particularly frightened by this analogy. Hit a guy right where it hurts why don't cha? Wow. A disservice to all us middle aged guys who can still 'cut a rug'.

I have to use either Exacto knives or box cutters when I want to cut a rug.:oops:

Lol!

“Evolution is hooey…the way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan.”

Views like these are relatively common in East Texas. But McLeroy is no ordinary citizen…[he] sits on the Texas State Board of Education, [and leads] an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions.

As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. They aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement.

Don McLeroy is a nutjob. In a position of authority. And one that influences what the children of TX (and other states) learn from their textbooks.

Because the Texas market is so large, the decisions that are made there have a disproportionate influence within the country as a whole.

The handful of zealots on both sides who are framing this debate, are whipping people into a froth. (n)

I keep up with the TX debate here: Texas Freedom Network

:smile:

Evolution on a masculine scale. - STLtoday.com

Scientific inquiry. Such as it is. Sometimes it seems as if foregone conclusions should be considered before testing a hypothesis. :smile:

Sighted, blind men both wowed by women's tiny waists - USATODAY.com

THAT is very funny. Good find! (y)(y)

I guess if a blind guy is feeling up his lady, he doesn't want to feel any rolls?

I don't find that too surprising, but it was definately a good read :)

You divas. :razz:

Evolution may cause men to fall in love more easily - Science Fair - USATODAY.com

I'm no statistics expert, but that seems a very small sample size given presumed variations in age, culture, personality, etc.?

Otherwise very interesting.

I suspect that the biggest issue is really the source of the sample, and the fact that there would probably not be much in the way of variability in many of the key dimensions.

You ol' statistician you. :razz:

I thought you may enjoy this from The Onion

Evolution Going Great, Reports Trilobite | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I read through this thread today. As some of you know there has been an attempt to teach the Bible in Texas public schools. The problem is if they do they also have to teach higher and lower criticism which tends to show the holes in the logic. Example: Sea of Reeds vs. Red Sea, young woman vs. virgin, Thy shall not kidnap vs. Thy shall not steal, Thy shall not murder vs. Thy shall not kill and others.

The real answer is that any dogma is generally full of holes. This also includes some of the followers of evolution. Anyone who follows blindly any dogma is most likely a sad example of the species and may be an example of de-evolution.

T-BOLT, I'll need a deconstruct of this statement. What is a 'follower of evolution'? And where in the Theory of Evolution do you find dogma?

The Dogma of evolution is that some of it's proponents do not understand that it is a theory and as such is subject of modification as more knowledge is "uncovered." An example is the discovery that some dinosaurs had feathers.

"Followers of evolution" have turned a theory into a form of religion. Evolution is not a law.

Well, I think we've been over these 'issues' many many times in this thread. Not sure if you are trained in science, but you should familiarize yourself with what a theory means.

Ok, so just a couple of follow ups.

As I mentioned above, refamiliarize yourself with what theory means.

As more knowledge is uncovered (literally) or as new experiments are conducted that add to the body of knowledge, or even change past conclusions, does this throw the Theory of Evolution into question? If you think it has, I'd like to see some sources. In fact, over the past 150 years, new understandings on the Theory of Evolution have greatly strengthened the theory. In these experiments, facts are indeed discovered and stated in peer reviewed scientific journals. It's these individual facts that add to a theory, as they do in all scientific disciplines.

And as to your evolution is a religion statement, well, I won't respond to that as it's just nonsense.

From the second page of this thread:

Here's a good description of what it means to be a Scientific Theory. The idea of creationism cannot pass this test. But the theory of evolution can and does.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Interesting.....

Creationism Vs. Evolution: An American Problem, An American Opportunity - 13.7: Cosmos And Culture Blog : NPR

Very interesting piece mriff. I know that I never run into these questions anywhere but in this country, and that includes dealing with folks who are devout believers in a range of faiths. It really does seem to be uniquely characteristic of the United States.

First off, I am a Christian who believes in both creationism and evolution. Why couldn't God be behind evolution? I believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years. When God created the earth in 6 "days" they didn't have to be human days. A day is just a relative measurement of time. Unfortunately, our understanding of the world has to be in our terms and measurements, even though God may not use those.
That being said, teach evolution in science class. Have classes for major religions too, just under a different department to keep the scientific community happy. Explain your beliefs to your kids, but after that, they are free to make their own decisions just like every one else.

Thank you!

That's how I like to think of it. I'm not religious but I am a bit spiritual. I like the balance idea. God creating dinosaurs is a neat idea. Like Raptor Jesus.

I get into arguments with one of my Christian friends who says it is impossible for life to exist on other planets, because if it did God would have told us. Why can't there be a God for each planet? Or the whole universe? Is it really so far fetched of an idea that life could exist elsewhere?

Sorry, a bit off topic, made me think about this.

Still off topic a bit, but the chance of life existing on other planets is so overwhelmingly great as to be certain.

It's true, and I miss my relatives. Hopefully one day I can get back to the home planet to see them again.

:razz:

Let's start a thread on it then!

Wow. I'm at a loss for words.

Poll: Majority of Texans Reject Evolution - Charles Johnson - The Lizard Annex - True/Slant

I find it absolutely amazing. The contrast with the academic reputation of the University at Austin, compared to these findings, simply blows my mind.

Here's an article for ya. Not sure what to say about this, except it was difficult to get all the way through it.

Evolutionism: the dying West's science of magic and madness

I thought this passage was particularly interesting:

In short, the age of irrationalism, lawlessness, hedonism, megalomania, and utopia-madness commenced when the rational personal God, His Revelation, unchanging Truth and Universal Moral Law were cunningly displaced by naturalistic evolutionism, astral-plane spirit-revelations, pantheistic-conceptions of god-forces, christ-consciousness, animated 'thinking' dead matter , 'force and voice ideas, ' inverted morality and moral relativism, Orwellian doublespeak, and terrible-willed megalomaniacs claiming to be supermen and god-men. These are the unifying factors of Bolshevism, Nazism, and America's Progressive Liberalism.

She probably drove her creative writing teachers crazy.

I will have to read that when I get a chance. My first thought from the quoted passage was, "my, let's invoke every bogey-man that I can remember."

It's far worse than you can imagine. Scary to the extreme that someone actually believes this.

But I must admit, the hedonism part sounds ok to me. :smile:

Good grief. :-(

LOL! Reading that self-important soliloquy made me dizzy. It's like Glenn Beck on acid. I can't decide whether she thinks she might get through to someone, or whether this volley was aimed at the proverbial choir, but in either case she has failed miserably. No amount of fireworks can distract from the author's lack of meaningful engagement on the subject.

Glen Beck on acid. Perfect. (y) I was searching for an analogy when I read the article, but couldn't come up with one.

And hey, what's wrong with hedonism?

he·don·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.
2. devotion to pleasure as a way of life: The later Roman emperors were notorious for their hedonism.

Sounds pretty good to me! :razz: