Pharyngula: Explore Evolution gets another drubbing — I’m always on the lookout for the latest strategy to destroy the teaching of science in the schools and to replace it with the nonsense that the earth was created intact 6000 years ago. The latest involves a book called “Explore Evolution” and the strategy is the buzz term “strength and weaknesses.” Another code phrase to be on the lookout for is “neo-Darwinism” whatever THAT is.
If you’ve been following the creationist strategy lately, you know that one of their efforts is to push a new and awful textbook, Explore Evolution, in conjunction with the various political bills to endorse a “strengths & weaknesses” theme in the public school science curriculum. Explore Evolution is the type specimen for that teaching technique; it contains nothing but imaginary problems in biology presented in a dueling opinions format, with creationists writing sloppy distortions of biological ideas coupled with creationists writing laudatory explanations based on Intelligent Design creationism.
#100, Scott,
Frustrating.
My best advise would be to just let it go. Cow-Paddy has this very bad right wing nut habit of inventing bullshit. Regardless of how much evidence you present, he will try to worm out of it, deny it and then tell you that you said something else.
#99, Mr. Unicorn,
Don’t worry about typos. This is a blog and it is generally frowned upon to criticize spelling and grammar as our comments are closer to speech than novels. Only if your comment is totally incomprehensible will you be questioned.
A suggestion if you are self conscious about what you write. Try using a word processor, such as OPEN OFFICE Writer or MS Office Word. Writing your comment there is easier to view and edit than in the little box on this blog. When you are satisfied with your comment, just cut and paste it into the comment box here.
And welcome to DU.
Paddy Old King Troll,
If you do have the guts to show your face (so to speak) on this thread again, I have another serious point to make about law vs theory.
It is true that I was incorrect about new laws. It seems even relativity is being considered a law, according to the wikipedia page.
However, I think your original point about law vs. theory was that laws are more immutable and more definite.
This is patently false.
First, keep in mind that evolution and natural selection are two separate things. Evolution is as near to fact as the so-called laws of thermodynamics. It has never been seriously challenged. It existed before Darwin explained the mechanism with his theory of natural selection.
Lamark had an incorrect theory to explain it. Lamark’s theory that involved inheritance of acquired traits would have had us acquiring the injuries of our parents and becoming progressively more decrepit as time wore on.
Darwin came up with a more correct explanation. Natural selection is that theory. It has also stood the test of time incredibly well, but has been augmented by sexual selection, some talk of possible group selection mechanisms, especially among bacteria and viruses, and by some more refinement in terms of the constancy or variability of the rate of change.
However, my point is that evolution, as a theory, has held up just as well as the laws of thermodynamics. If there were a set of laws of biology, evolution would be at the top of the list.
Compare this to Newton’s Laws of Motion, proven false by Einstein’s laws of Relativity. I was personally surprised to see that on the page of the laws of physics on wikipedia. I had only ever heard relativity called a theory before. Then, compare Einstein’s laws with Evolution. Evolution is not contradicted by any other known theory or law. Evolution is not questioned by any significant number of scientists.
Relativity, on the other hand, even though it is numbered among the laws of physics, is in direct contradiction to quantum mechanics. One or both of these theories (or laws, if you prefer) must be wrong at the point at which they overlap.
So, regardless of the term law or theory, evolution is not in question where many laws either are in question or have been actively proven wrong.
Care to comment on your real point about law vs. theory now? Or, has the troll been defeated and is now afraid to show his face in the light of sun? Would you really turn to stone if you did?
#103–Scot==is Newton “wrong” or only correct within a given set of conditions? Small point.
Bigger point: You think that is Paddy’s face he is showing? You must have one ugly family.
#104 – bobbo,
I think that Newton’s Law is technically wrong. It happens to be an extremely good approximation within a given set of conditions. However, even within those conditions, one would get greater precision of calculations using relativity. I realize it’s a small point. Obviously Newton’s Laws are good enough within that given set of conditions for building bridges and skyscrapers and airplanes and the like. However, for voyager, and probably even for mars missions (though I’m not sure), they use relativity.
Bigger point: That is his face, you don’t want to see the other end (NSFW).
http://tinyurl.com/yaeagt
Yea. I vote that “the worst picture of all time.” So bad, I’ve never made a copy of it.
It was almost referenced a day or two ago when that es-Miss America said that the Obama’s were observed fisting each other after Obama was sworn in.
Aren’t those corn fed beauties a caution?
#103, Scott,
Just to add, I think your opinion on Laws vs Theories is on the right track.
Another explanation is that “Laws” will explain that something happens without an explanation. An example would be “that White light will be broken down into the colors of the spectrum by a prism” Yes, it happens and will always happen. But WHY it happens is explained by the THEORY of light.
#107 – Mr. Fusion,
Excellent explanation. I disagree with one point though, and this is just my opinion. I think neither string theory nor M-theory should really even have the name theory in them. I think they should be called string hypothesis and m-hypothesis instead. My reason for this is seeing the confusion that the name theory gets from this point, in addition to the confusion over theory just from confusing it with the non-scientific version of the term.
Of course, a coworker who actually is a PHD string theorist disagrees with me quite strongly. He has confidence that once we find the shapes of the compactified dimensions, string theory will be the TOE or GUT or whatever you prefer to call it. I don’t personally see any reason to assume that the string and brane people have it right. They’ve been going for over 30 years and have not yet made a serious prediction, with a possible notable exception in the case of glue-balls.
I think strings/branes have more going for them than ID in that they don’t fly up their own assholes in infinite recursion the way ID does (i.e. turtles all the way down).
However, they are far from proven and do not, AFAIK, have any serious supporting evidence at present. I am hopeful that they may one day. However, I am also hopeful for several other hypotheses and even for the people who start from no hypothesis and try to build a model from what we actually know. (Read Warped Passages by Lisa Randall if you’re interested enough to read a full length book on alternate hypotheses.)
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/9780060531096
Dang. I forgot about the Wrong Wrong Wrong in my URL again. Sorry eds. Why do I not have this problem on my own wordpress blog? Perhaps there is a wordpress software upgrade available or perhaps wordpress.com does not use their own software? Hmm… Strange.
#106 – bobbo,
Yea. I vote that “the worst picture of all time.” So bad, I’ve never made a copy of it.
Agreed. But, it does make the point well.
It was almost referenced a day or two ago when that es-Miss America said that the Obama’s were observed fisting each other after Obama was sworn in.
Funny. I thought for years that Cheney was fisting W so hard that he was able to use W as a ventriloquist dummy.
Aren’t those corn fed beauties a caution?
Nah. They look like mannequins to me. When I hear one give a nice speech on theoretical physics or evolution, I’ll change my opinion. Until then, they look like plastic to me.
Lisa Randall, mentioned in my previous post, looks hotter to me. Maybe it’s the gray matter.
http://tinyurl.com/cyyyky
http://tinyurl.com/apjakg
#111, Scott,
If we agreed 100% then what would we discuss? I admit I am not a physicist. The majority of the physics I know about goes back too many years ago and there have been too many other things in my life to keep current with. Maybe I am an example of knowing a little is worse than knowing nothing.
Yes, I agree that Lisa Randall is very attractive. And I’m sure that her intelligence doesn’t hurt either.
I see a woman like Randall and see the obvious beauty. Then I see these guys all claiming Sarah Palin is “hot”. Wow!!! I can see how the old “different strokes for different folks” crap and all, but c’mon, …
# 103 Misanthropic Scott said, “It is true that I was incorrect about new laws. ”
I know. That was my point in toto.
#112 – Paddy-tr0ll,
Good idea Paddy-tr0ll. Switch to a point that you can make. It happens, your original point is total BS and you know it.
Law vs. Theory was your meaningless point.
But, go ahead wallow in making an extremely small and irrelevant point. It suits you well, and even better that you can’t remember your own damn point.
It was especially good to come back days later in hopes of getting the last word. Too bad several of us have picked up on that habit of yours. It just makes you more of a troll.
bobbo has you nailed. You’re a total zero.