Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[TAHAWK]

E. coli aside, wasn't there a species of birds that evolved in a few generations? 

 

Checking.

 

"[M]edium ground finch,  Geospiza fortis, on the Galápagos island of Daphne (how appropriator) evolved smaller beaks in about twenty years.

[Stosh]

I heard once that 99% of all species that ever walked the earth have gone extinct.  I have no idea where that number came from or how accurate it is. 

 

So, as it's opposite, do we find new species as we search in more and more new places did they arise because of evolution or were they always there?

 

It's not that I don't understand what people mean by "evolution" it's just that 1 a species might adapt to a change in it's environment but scientists don't say that's a new species.  They say once a change maintains a certain level of common consistency then this would indicate a new species, like 3 legged frogs.  And of course then Down's Syndrome with it's consistent characteristics would indicate a new species.  Well, I'm not into accepting that at all.

 

Scientists say evolution is adaptation and other say it's just mutations, how many it takes to get a new species is not defined.

 

Then there's the one scientist that says a fossil is human while another says it's an ape.  This of course means that because they can't agree that we have now found the Missing Link.

 

Then in the background the atheists keep their mantra going that all of this evolution stuff is proof there is no God. 

 

For science to be of any value it has to provide a sense of continuity and consistency to be of any value and must remain pure knowledge, not speculation of certain aspects of nature based on some political or religious agenda.

[qwazse]

...

Folks, when you have mastered multivariate analysis and combined those skills with molecular genetics and cladistics, just to start, then you will be prepared to address some of these things. 

...

Yeah, that's right. Go master that multivariate analysis ... when you're stuck, I'll offer tutoring at a reasonable rate ... or a less than reasonable rate, run the analysis for you ... you won't believe what I'm showing you ... and I won't believe you're trying to pay me to tell you what you want hear ... that's how it works.

 

Bottom line with the bacteria experiment: Parts for enough watches in a box, shaken just long enough, not too hard, not too gently, and maybe a "1" will land beside a "2" on the dial at 12 O'clock and stick there ... that's what was roughly replicated. Generalize that to a much bigger box, much longer "shakes" at just the right amount of energy for a mind-numbingly long time ... and a whole planet full of Rolexes isn't as far fetched as some would make it to be.

 

Or maybe it is, and we just so happen to find ourselves in the privelaged place in the universe where life-laden matter is frothing up as if someone just called up delivery pizza.

 

And, yes, I have used all of the above in discussions with the boys. Just don't ask me to do it at every SMC.

Edited April 29, 2015 by qwazse

[Stosh]

So, on a more literary note, how long would it take an average chimpanzee with a computer keyboard to replicate the entire works of Shakespeare?  God only knows!  Which proves the existence of God.  

[packsaddle]

Those chimps are already banging away in Irving and making new guidelines and policy.

 

Stosh, ignore the atheists if that's what you perceive them as doing. There is nothing they can say that will shake true faith. If they seem to be attacking ideas you and others hold to be truth, that is their right to do that just a it is the right of the religious to proselytize to the unfaithful. 

As for the topic of 'evolution', one element of the process is the existence of genetic and phenotypic variation. Mutations are merely one source of this variation. They, mutations, themselves are not evolution but they do contribute to the overall process. Adaptation is another essential part of the process and that is the result of natural selection acting on phenotypic and genetic variation. Of course, in order to have adaptation there must also be variation in environment and habitat, which is easy to envision. When all of this is combined it composes the system of change we call 'evolution' in the simplest of terms. 

 

Complexity in this process arises quickly and while complexity can be found in all of the parts off the process, it can be illustrated for one of them: mutations.

There are a huge number of potential mutations that can happen various places in the genome and they occur for different reasons at different rates, sometimes very rarely and sometimes they are 'repaired' by the mechanisms that cells have adapted in order to overcome the effects of mutations. Moreover, not all of the phenotypic variation that is acted on by selective pressures is due directly to genetics but arises through the interaction of variable genetically-based regulatory mechanisms involving the interaction between several, or even clusters, of genes. This is an exciting area of genetics that is still expanding. 

 

But when you consider the complexity, some of which we are still discovering, of the part involving mutations and genetics, and then combine that complexity with the multitude of different potential ways organisms can adapt to a multitude of different conditions, you can begin to grasp how difficult the subject of 'evolution' really is. 

 

When you consider that some kind of selective process operates at nearly every level of biological organization, for example starting with the ability of cell membranes to regulate the transport of different molecules, or the way cells 'recognize' other cells at the molecular level....and then work your 'telescope' on complexity up through the way tissues work, then whole organisms, then population growth or interactions, then through organismal behavior, and then through the way these communities of interacting populations are constantly adjusting to their changing environments....the selective process is operating simultaneously at all these levels..and more. NOW you can begin to understand why 'physics', in comparison, is like comparing the game of checkers (physics) to 'n-dimensional' chess (biology). 

And this is why, for example, those who are exploring the field of genomics are also adept at using vast computational tools because those are necessary to achieve what little understanding we now have. 

BUT, it all, all of it, arises from that simple evolutionary model that Darwin envisioned in a flawed way but which, even to this day, continues to be corrected and improved. That is why Dobzhansky said what he did about biology and evolution. 

 

Quazse, I also enjoy using a pocketwatch metaphor to communicate the concept of 'holism' and 'emergent properties' as opposed to 'reductionism' and 'mechanistic determinism'. Some of the students 'get' it, some don't. Kind of like me and romance. I don't 'get' it, never did, probably never will, lol. 

Edited April 29, 2015 by packsaddle

[Stosh]

I'm not at all worried about the atheists in as much as I am concerned about their message and their "hero" Darwin.  We're talking  about how honorable this anti-Christian racist is in our world today and how he has championed the "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"  Not really a Dali Lama, Martin Luther or St. Francis type of guy.

 

With that being said, opening the doors to accommodate these people in BSA will in fact negate the Duty to God issue as well as the 12th Law.

 

Even with the community of believers, there are enough misunderstanding that I don't think it can be guaranteed that all scouts will be given a fair shake with a SM who abuses the advancement requirement.  This is well known in the scouting community already and I don't think the new requirements is going to do anything to help that situation but may in fact make it worse, kinda like a knee-jerk reaction on the part of someone already "bending" the rule here. BSA does have a history of going with the lowest common denominator when it comes to social and religious issues. 

[Peregrinator]

If you think you had a larval stage then I worry about your scientific literacy

 

When I was still in the larval stage I listened to my mentors

[Peregrinator]

It's not that I don't understand what people mean by "evolution" it's just that 1 a species might adapt to a change in it's environment but scientists don't say that's a new species.

 

True. The domestic dog has been classified variously as Canis canis, Canis domesticus, and Canis familiaris. But nowadays (and for the last 20 years), it's been classified as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the wolf Canis lupus.

 

And the successful Russian program to breed a domesticated fox shows that extreme selective pressure can produce "evolutionary" results in a species in just a few generations.

[packsaddle]

'Race' in the sense used by Darwin refers to a subpopulation that has identifiable phenotypic differences that do not necessarily qualify for 'species-level' designation. In taxonomy the nomenclatural term of 'variety' or 'form' is sometimes used. In the distant past (Darwin's time) the term 'race' was also used in taxonomy. In sub-disciplines of organismal biology, terms like 'associations' or other terms borrowed from human sociology are also sometimes applied but they have almost none of the meaning as used in sociology. In Darwin's case, the 'races' he referred to applied to all organisms. You are making the assumption that it was directed specifically at the illusory concept we apply to humans and although he was aware of that and may well have reflected the prejudices of his time, you are misinterpreting its use in that particular example.

His first use of the term 'race' in the book, for example, is worded: "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", which as we know today includes cabbage, brussel sprouts, cauliflower, and broccoli, all the same species. Later in the book he refers to "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants", none of which has the human connotation in mind. Darwin was fervently opposed to slavery and this caused great trouble for him at times. I think that in your desire to find fault you're finding it when it doesn't exist, at least in this case. 

 

Edit: Peregrinator, in many ways I'm still larval, lol.

Edited April 29, 2015 by packsaddle

[TAHAWK]

"And the successful Russian program to breed a domesticated fox shows that extreme selective pressure can produce "evolutionary" results in a species in just a few generations."

 

The part that gets me is how the color of their coats changed.  

[packsaddle]

TAHAWK, look around and you can see plenty of examples of the grotesque things we've bred. I have never understood why we do that but the phenotypic plasticity of species is quite amazing for many organisms.

[MattR]

I don't think it can be guaranteed that all scouts will be given a fair shake with a SM who abuses the advancement requirement.

Are there any guarantees? Maybe you mean to say a significant number of adults will abuse this. But how many abuse the patrol method? There's risk in a lot of what we do. We're trying to encourage teenagers after all. That's an explosive mixture. I will agree that national treats us the way they don't want us to treat the scouts: It's better to micromanage than to train, trust, and let them be.

 

As for the evolution/creation argument, it's great. The creationists are doing a better job of keeping the scientists honest than the scientists. Everyone says the options are only DNA/sex or Intelligent Design. Maybe there are other options Who knows, maybe symbiotic relationships can just turn into new species. Maybe the truth is that nature is guaranteed to create intelligent life. Ever wonder why water is so unique? Maybe there are coded programs, much like DNA but not organic, that work on DNA to create mutations. Maybe I read too much sci-fi, but who says aliens aren't part of the mix? The one constant that scientists have given us is that nature is always much deeper than we think. Enjoy the ride.

[Peregrinator]

TAHAWK, look around and you can see plenty of examples of the grotesque things we've bred. I have never understood why we do that but the phenotypic plasticity of species is quite amazing for many organisms.

That's true but in this case, at least initially, the scientists weren't selecting for physical attributes but only for tameness and friendliness to humans. For some reason those traits seem to go hand-in-hand with other attributes of domesticated animals (e.g., droopy ears).

[NJCubScouter]

I will agree that national treats us the way they don't want us to treat the scouts: It's better to micromanage than to train, trust, and let them be.

 

Well, in this case I think they are micromanaging in one sense, but taking a hands-off attitude in another sense.  It would have been better if they just left it to each Scoutmaster to determine whether a Scout has shown Scout Spirit.  But since it appears that they aren't, I think they need to provide guidance to Scoutmasters about how to react or deal with certain answers they might hear from the Scouts.  They should have done so years ago, but it is especially important now that the number of Scoutmasters asking about "Duty to God" is going to increase from whatever it is now to 100 percent.  (At least in theory.  I suspect there are going to SM's who decide that if National wants to know something, National can ask.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Evolution with all of it's short-comiings still remains the cornerstone of atheistic "proof" for the non-existence of (G)od(s).

 

No, that would be the total lack of reasons to think supernatural things exist.  Evolution isn't any more proof of the non-existence of gods than orbital mechanics, though either one might look that way if you think gods must be responsible for species or planetary movement.