[George Herold]

No, you miss the point.

Show me a Democrat

'meekly raises hand'

Hi James,
I'm mostly a 'social' democrat, that borders on libertarian,
Financially, I'm more conservative.
(debt, bad...)

these days that believes in free markets, natural

selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.

Well I don't want unbridled capitalism.
(to pick a topic close to home.)
I'd like to see hydro-fracturing of gas here in upstate NY.
But I want some regulations, Drilling companies should carry insurance
for the inevitable accident.

When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
same, or that they can be trusted to do so.  Progs disparage the idea
that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
it.

We need to encourage work. The place I work is in a poor part of
town,
(partly for tax reasons.) Going to work I drive by guys coming out of
mini-marts with bottles in paper bags... It's such a waste of people!
Is it wrong for me to belive that most of these people would be
happier as productive parts of society?

George H.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Even if it's so, what does it matter in practical terms? No human living
now or in the past ever vitnessed evolution of species from one to
another, so what does it matter what we believe about it?

You haven't been paying attention. Multiple drug resistant strains of
tuberculosis have evolved within living memory.
They may not represent a new speices, but they do represent a real
nuisance.

It's no different than believing in extra-terrestial beings.

Not exactly. Fossils exist. Extra-terrestrial beings are purely
hypothetical.

Some believe in their existence, some don't. Your views about it make no difference and
one view does not make it superior over the other.

A view that includes fossils is almost certainly superior to one that
doesn't. The more you know about the past, the more reliably you can
predict the future. those that don't know history are condemned to
repeat it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

No, you miss the point.

Not really. You want to carry on about what you think that Democrats
ought to believe, and in the process you've ignored what they actually
do believe.

Show me a Democrat these days that believes in free markets, natural
selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.

I certainly believe that, and I'd probably vote Democrat if I had a
vote in the US. I don't believe that it happens in every situation,
and I do believe that the free market has to be regulated and adjusted
so that it actually does happen most of the time.

When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
same, or that they can be trusted to do so.  Progs disparage the idea
that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
it.

Social Darwinists think that it happens all the time, in every
situation and don't see the necessity for measures like anti-trust
legislation, anti-child-labour laws and the like. This is an over-
simplification.

So, to the extent most Democrats believe in natural selection, in
everyday life they deny it, think it's bad, and want to stop it.

A fatuous extrapolation.

Economically, they place their faith in divine intervention.

In reality, they place their faith in interactions that you can't be
bothered to comprehend. You ought to be bright enough to see the
necessity for anti-trust legislation, child-labour laws and so forth,
but you prefer to keep the debate confined to zippy one-liners.

 

[cameo]

You haven't been paying attention. Multiple drug resistant strains of
tuberculosis have evolved within living memory.
They may not represent a new speices, but they do represent a real
nuisance.

You are the one not paying attention. I didn't argue about the existence
of evolution. I just asked what difference does it make to us now what
somebody believes about it if that happens over millions of years where
any generation of humans cannot even affect, witness or observe it. The
hybrids we "engineered" cannot reproduce themselves, so they are a
dead-end in the evolution. We could not even affect the mutation of
viruses or bacteria.

Not exactly. Fossils exist. Extra-terrestrial beings are purely
hypothetical.

Except that we cannot prove definitely that those fossils really evolved
from one to another or were separate species to begin with where the
ones with less ability to adapt to changing environment died out and the
others survived. Heck, not long ago the common scientific view was that
humans evolved from monkeys or apes. Now the common view is that we
represent separate evolutionary chains. Who knows what scientist will
say 10 year from now?

A view that includes fossils is almost certainly superior to one that
doesn't.

Certainly some fossils on this NG might think that.

The more you know about the past, the more reliably you can
predict the future. those that don't know history are condemned to
repeat it.

More banality from our resident fossil ...

 

[Bill Sloman]

You are the one not paying attention. I didn't argue about the existence
of evolution. I just asked what difference does it make to us now what
somebody believes about it if that happens over millions of years where
any generation of humans cannot even affect, witness or observe it.

And I was giving you an example of it happening within a human
lifetime, and having a very real and immdediate effect.

The hybrids we "engineered" cannot reproduce themselves,

What makes you think that?

so they are a dead-end in the evolution. We could not even affect the mutation of
viruses or bacteria.

Craig Venter has built an artificial bacterium genome from scratch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

Except that we cannot prove definitely that those fossils really evolved
from one to another or were separate species to begin with where the
ones with less ability to adapt to changing environment died out and the
others survived.

Science never proves anything definitely, but it can show that this
hypothesis is consistent with everything we know, and is a much better
explanation than any other explanation that anybody has come up with.

Heck, not long ago the common scientific view was that
humans evolved from monkeys or apes. Now the common view is that we
represent separate evolutionary chains. Who knows what scientist will
say 10 year from now?

You clearly don't know what scientists were saying back when Charles
Darwin got the ball rolling, and haven't got much of an idea of what
they are saying now.

The official formulation always was that the great apes and human had
a fairly recent common ancestor - we now know that this was somewhere
between 7 and 14 million years ago - and that the common ancestor of
monkeys. apes and humans lived quite a bit earlier - we now that this
was more than 20 million years ago, and probably not more than about
40 million years ago.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Researchers_discover_last_common_ancestor_of_apes_and_monkeys

Certainly some fossils on this NG might think that.


More banality from our resident fossil ...

Not exactly a banality - you clearly don't appreciate how little you
know.

 

[Jamie]

And I was giving you an example of it happening within a human
lifetime, and having a very real and immdediate effect.




What makes you think that?




Craig Venter has built an artificial bacterium genome from scratch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form




Science never proves anything definitely, but it can show that this
hypothesis is consistent with everything we know, and is a much better
explanation than any other explanation that anybody has come up with.




You clearly don't know what scientists were saying back when Charles
Darwin got the ball rolling, and haven't got much of an idea of what
they are saying now.

The official formulation always was that the great apes and human had
a fairly recent common ancestor - we now know that this was somewhere
between 7 and 14 million years ago - and that the common ancestor of
monkeys. apes and humans lived quite a bit earlier - we now that this
was more than 20 million years ago, and probably not more than about
40 million years ago.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Researchers_discover_last_common_ancestor_of_apes_and_monkeys




Not exactly a banality - you clearly don't appreciate how little you
know.

Do you actually believe half the stuff you spew out here? More
so, you should be questioning yourself.

Jamie

 

[josephkk]

Even if it's so, what does it matter in practical terms? No human living
now or in the past ever vitnessed evolution of species from one to
another, so what does it matter what we believe about it? It's no
different than believing in extra-terrestial beings. Some believe in
their existence, some don't. Your views about it make no difference and
one view does not make it superior over the other.

We have not documented it progressing to the point of speciation. We have
documented natural selection in the wild driving _population_ phenotype
(appearance) to complete color dominance toward one color then back. We
have been breeding all of our associated animals and flowering plants (and
yes mushrooms as well) for thousands of years to get the properties we
want.

?-)

 

[Bill Sloman]

  Do you actually believe half the stuff you spew out here? More
so, you should be questioning yourself.

If you disagree with what I've posted, either post your counter-
evidence, or shut up.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Not really. You want to carry on about what you think that Democrats
ought to believe, and in the process you've ignored what they actually
do believe.


I certainly believe that, and I'd probably vote Democrat if I had a
vote in the US. I don't believe that it happens in every situation,
and I do believe that the free market has to be regulated and adjusted
so that it actually does happen most of the time.


Social Darwinists think that it happens all the time, in every
situation and don't see the necessity for measures like anti-trust
legislation, anti-child-labour laws and the like. This is an over-
simplification.


A fatuous extrapolation.


In reality, they place their faith in interactions that you can't be
bothered to comprehend. You ought to be bright enough to see the
necessity for anti-trust legislation, child-labour laws and so forth,
but you prefer to keep the debate confined to zippy one-liners.

And I thought in his re-introduction to the group that Sloman would stickto
on-topic ELECTRONIC matters, and keep politics and snide remarks out. Sigh.

Why should I? Very few of the regular posters restrict themselves in
this way.

He must always prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Poor
thing.

Well, post something that proves I'm wrong. I've got lots of opinions,
and some of them have got to be wrong.

If you can find one, and convincing evidence that demonstates that the
opinion is wrong, I'll have been educated, and you'll have scored a
point. In the meantime, what you've posted isn't exactly useful
criticism.

 

[cameo]

You are wrong. Speciation has been observed in action. Evolution has
been observed in action, including flu and tuberculosis etc. "engineered
hybrids" can of course indeed reproduce.

Engineered hybrids, huh? That means humans as the engineers right? So
who engineered all the evolution before humans? Besides, I was thinking
of higher species, not mutation of some bacteria or virae.

"what difference does it make"? I could argue that there is the danger
that, if too many people think like you do, some will get into positions
of power and make dangerous decisions. Someone, somewhere will decide
that diseases cannot evolve so what is the point of funding flu vaccines
development predicated on this very assumption?

Danger is more likely in the other way around. Consider those Nazi
experiments, for instance.

But really it is just good to know what is true, to do our best to find
out what is actually true and what is not.

You know, science instead of wilful ignorance.

No kidding ... How profound!

 

[cameo]

We have not documented it progressing to the point of speciation. We have
documented natural selection in the wild driving _population_ phenotype
(appearance) to complete color dominance toward one color then back. We
have been breeding all of our associated animals and flowering plants (and
yes mushrooms as well) for thousands of years to get the properties we
want.

Yes, we have but we were not always around. So how did they evolve
without us then? Besides, what you list here did not result in new
species, just a variation of the same ones. Like the different dogs that
are still just dogs.

 

[cameo]

And I thought in his re-introduction to the group that Sloman would
stick to on-topic ELECTRONIC matters, and keep politics and snide
remarks out. Sigh. He must always prove that he is right and everyone
else is wrong. Poor thing.

Tom, Louisville

Actually, I started this thread and asked why Higgs boson is also
referred in the popular media as The Good Particle. The thread then
degenerated into a theist-atheist debate where the majority of atheists
claimed that belief in God is contrary to good science. But I still
haven't seen a good argument why that should be so. There are plenty of
scientists who believe in a Supreme Being, or whatever you want to call
it. Yet such belief does not hinder them in their research. One of them
was Mendel in the 19th century Germany or Austria, the pioneer of genetics.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Yes, we have but we were not always around. So how did they evolve
without us then?

Consult Darwin. He spelled out the mechanism, if perhaps in less
detail than would allow American fundamentalists to get the message.

Besides, what you list here did not result in new
species, just a variation of the same ones. Like the different dogs that
are still just dogs.

Species are defined as groups that don't interbreed. The differences
that stop them interbreeding can be subtle, but if you want an Irish
wolf-hound to interbreed with a dachshund you may have to do quite a
bit of facilitation.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Actually, I started this thread and asked why Higgs boson is also
referred in the popular media as The God Particle. The thread then
degenerated into a theist-atheist debate where the majority of atheists
claimed that belief in God is contrary to good science.

It isn't. But scientists can't believe in God as a scientific
hypothesis. There's no reproducible evidence for His existence.
They are perfectly entitled to an irrational belief in his existence,
just like any other believer.

But I still
haven't seen a good argument why that should be so. There are plenty of
scientists who believe in a Supreme Being, or whatever you want to call
it. Yet such belief does not hinder them in their research. One of them
was Mendel in the 19th century Germany or Austria, the pioneer of genetics.

So what. There are beliefs that are scientificly defensible, and a lot
more that aren't. It's probably safer to base political decisions that
affect all of us on beliefs that are evidence-based and scientificly
defensible, but this is a democracy, and everybody can believe what
they like, not matter how silly some of the beliefs are.

 

[Martin Brown]

So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?

They are only assumed to be atheists by knuckle dragging American Bible
thumpers. The nearest to an evidence based scientific position based on
the limited evidence available for the existence of a deity is agnostic.

That doesn't stop scientists believing or not.

The earliest use of the term seems to have been as the title of a
popular science particle physics book by Lederman & Teresi in 1993 with
shades of HHGG. A bit like with "Big Bang" the moniker has stuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question?

Plenty of famous scientists and mathematicians have been or still are
religious. Polkinghorne has probably written one of the more balanced
accounts of religious faith and its influence on scientists.

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

It is the YEC loons denying geochronology and cosmology that are trying
to prove the world is 6000 years old that you have to watch out for.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi, I'm here!

Cool! I've been spending too much time around Democrat politicians.

How do you know what I believe? Just from the label "Democrat" you can
infer all that?

Well, I didn't know you were a Democrat. From our discussion on
Obamacare, it certainly *seems* you're not comfortable trusting people
to make their own choices.

In particular, you're arguing for a system whose organizing principle
is compulsion, optimized by intelligent design (by non-expert non-
participants), and whose compulsions are based on political gain for
those compelling. Contrast this with a system organized by free
choice and optimized by the evolutionary pressure of the individuals
making those choices, a free market. The gov't makes sure no one
cheats you, but you can choose as you please.

When I look to our medical care system I fully see how external
pressure after external pressure from Congress shaped it from what it
was into what it is today. (People will jump through a lot of hoops
for tax free income.) Evolution.

If doctors advertised prices and people actually had to pay, the cost
of ordinary care would plummet. That would fix 2/3rds of what ails
us. That's my faith in organic, self-organizing, self-optimizing
systems. (And in distributed intelligence, the common wisdom if you
will.) It works in natural system after natural system.

I think I am starting to agree with something you said in an another post.

I agree with most of your intentions, really. I just don' t think
people understand where this new health regulation law takes us, which
is toward the problems instead of away. The best solutions to a
problem this big with this many facets are not found in the hands of a
single bureaucrat--the HHS secretary--or in the 15-member IPAB
(politically-appointed Medicare cut panel), but in the wisdom and
choices of the people.

 

[[email protected]]

'meekly raises hand'

Acknowledged, and I think that's where the people and the nation are,
mostly. Just not the leaders today. Certainly not BHO or his HHS
Sec'y.

The question posed to me was which brand of politician would deny
evolution, so that's what I was responding to. The current leaders
have no faith in us, they believe in intelligent design, and have
selected themselves as the designers. They're not leaders, they're
ruling us. Literally, with rules. Dumb ones.

Hi James,
I'm mostly a 'social' democrat, that borders on libertarian,
Financially, I'm more conservative.
(debt, bad...)


Well I don't want unbridled capitalism.
(to pick a topic close to home.)
I'd like to see hydro-fracturing of gas here in upstate NY.
But I want some regulations, Drilling companies should carry insurance
for the inevitable accident.

Of course. People aren't and should not be free to do something that
hurts someone else. But, my choosing not to buy drug counseling
insurance or pre-natal visits for me personally--that doesn't hurt
anyone. Literally. No one.

We need to encourage work.  The place I work is in a poor part of
town,
(partly for tax reasons.)

This is exactly the problem: the People Who Know Better((c)(Dr. Phil
Hobbs, Esq.)) did that and lots more, in this case with tax policy.
Regulation. Obamacare likewise creates huge economic dislocations and
swarms of Obamacare refugees.

A decent article--an actuarial study--yesterday projects premiums will
rise 32%, average. But the damage is worse than that (and that's not
even counting the non-financial effects).

I spent (wasted) part of yesterday reading more of the new Obamacare
regs. OMG. If people really understood this, there's no way they'd
support it. It's an enormous takeover and attempt to micromanage to
the smallest detail, by people who have no idea whatsoever what
they're doing.

The HHS estimates estimate--over and over again--barely more total
compliance time-cost for the nation, in some cases, than I just spent
personally just reading their document! Are these people insane?

Going to work I drive by guys coming out of
mini-marts with bottles in paper bags... It's such a waste of people!
Is it wrong for me to belive that most of these people would be
happier as productive parts of society?

Yes. Absolutely. But, if my work is to be confiscated, I may join
them in their decision (minus the drinking thing--too many calories).

As President Obama said, at some point haven't you made enough money?
Yes, actually. So, I'll deliberately lower my income to avoid
supporting Obamacare. If I'm to be forced, I'll resist. It's my
right, and it makes financial sense too. Besides, there's no point
working harder for that last extra dollar, trading my last, most
precious remaining free time for fewer and fewer dollars. I can read
a book instead.

I know sooo many making the same plans who feel the same way. Does
that help America? It's so much better if you create a safe place
with reasonable rules, then let people pursue their dreams--that's
what made America great.

 

[[email protected]]

You are wrong. Speciation has been observed in action. Evolution has
been observed in action, including flu and tuberculosis etc. "engineered
hybrids" can of course indeed reproduce.

"what difference does it make"? I could argue that there is the danger
that, if too many people think like you do, some will get into positions
of power and make dangerous decisions.

I don't really think there's a danger with respect to disease. Human
origin is another issue--people separate and treat matters of faith
and science as distinct questions.

Someone, somewhere will decide
that diseases cannot evolve so what is the point of funding flu vaccines
development predicated on this very assumption?

I really think there's a far greater danger in political philosophy,
when a Barack Obama, with very little real-world experience other than
political protest, deigns design our energy, medical, financial
systems, distribution of wealth, and more.

That is, when he denies evolution and adaptive optimization based on
free choice, and substitutes his own intelligent design.

Those things have the potential to destroy a society, and quickly.

 

[[email protected]]

Do you actually believe half the stuff you spew out here? More
so, you should be questioning yourself.

Help Slowman keep his pledge. Ignore him.

 

[Bill Sloman]

I don't really think there's a danger with respect to disease.  Human
origin is another issue--people separate and treat matters of faith
and science as distinct questions.


I really think there's a far greater danger in political philosophy,
when a Barack Obama, with very little real-world experience other than
political protest, deigns design our energy, medical, financial
systems, distribution of wealth, and more.

A lot less dangerous than it would be to have James Arthur, who only
pays attention to evidence he likes, trying to do the same job.

That is, when he denies evolution and adaptive optimization based on
free choice, and substitutes his own intelligent design.

This is a matter of opinion - in James Arthur's case, ill-informed and
biased opinion.

Those things have the potential to destroy a society, and quickly.

They always have. Society is always vulnerable to people who are
convinced that they are right, and prepared to ignore any evidence
that disagrees with their point of view. From my perspective, James
Arthur looks a lot more dangerous than Barak Obama - happily, James
Arthur is a lot further from the levers of power than Barak Obama. The
Tea Party Republicans look a lot too much like James Arthur for
comfort, and they are much too close to the levers of power for any
rational observer to sleep easily at night.