Kentucky religious conservatives cannot wrap their head around theory of evolution

phenotype:

(from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type') is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two.

Humans already display a wide phenotypical variety. Some have yellow hair, some have red. Some are short, some are tall. Some have protruding jaws, some have receding ones. Skin complexion, tone, and other qualities, through their range of expression is also a phenotypical variable.

FYI.

EDIT: I didn't say you were stupid, Malor. I said you couldn't identify critical thinking and couldn't appreciate it. If it makes you feel any better, rabbit on the CC has displayed the same. It's a matter of training, not intellectual aptitude.

Larry didn't say "multiple human phenotypes", Malor, he said "a variety of possible phenotypes for human DNA". He's accurate there. Human phenotypes vary significantly within the human genome; you can google "human phenotype variation" and see for yourself.

EDIT: I didn't say you were stupid, Malor. I said you couldn't identify critical thinking and couldn't appreciate it.

Thanks, Larry. Nice clarification, there. You're welcome to start doing some anytime -- imaginary pseudo-monkeys with absolutely no evidence to support them is not it.

Along this topic and with what LarryC is posting, I thought something about anthropomorphism. I want to turn it on its head.

Who says that humans are ascribing human mannerisms/emotions onto animals? Correct me if I'm wrong but animals of all sorts have been around a lot longer than humans. Just look at any cat, from a tiger to kitten. Are we trying to say that they learned to slink/stalk from a vaudeville villain or commedia dell'arte. I think we have gotten it completely backwards. Mannerisms are derived from or have involved from animals or from our more animal like ancestors.

fangblackbone wrote:

Along this topic and with what LarryC is posting, I thought something about anthropomorphism. I want to turn it on its head.

Who says that humans are ascribing human mannerisms/emotions onto animals? Correct me if I'm wrong but animals of all sorts have been around a lot longer than humans. Just look at any cat, from a tiger to kitten. Are we trying to say that they learned to slink/stalk from a vaudeville villain or commedia dell'arte. I think we have gotten it completely backwards. Mannerisms are derived from or have involved from animals or from our more animal like ancestors.

I like this. I scribbled something a couple of years ago about the ID tactic of interpreting physiological features as analogical to how humans would engineer them. This seems to follow the same direction of implication as anthropomorphism: humans have a feature, and some natural phenomenon or agent is observed to have a similar feature, and the feature is categorized as if the human feature is canonical.

My question: if there are naturally occurring phenomena with similar attributes to human-designed phenomena, why not assume human intelligence has derived this capacity by virtue of our membership in the natural world, that the natural phenomenon and human design capacity are derived from a common source, the natural world itself?

I'm honestly a little distracted as I type this so I may have articulated the idea poorly. I imagine it's not difficult to parse, though.

It's clear enough to me, but I'm not exactly the King of Clarity around here. The instinct to view the human POV as the center of the universe is both insidious and unfortunately universal. I have to fight against the urge to think that way pretty much all the time.

One of the other points about ToE that's continually clouded is that many people appear to think that evolution marches forward and only leads to more physically powerful, more intelligent species. Chimps being less intelligent than humans is commonly mistaken by people to suppose that they are less evolved. The spirit of Darwin's true ToE is often completely lost:

"It is NOT the stronger, nor the most intelligent that survives, but the one that is most adapted to change."

Many presume that this means that in a single instance of Natural Selection, the one that has the trait that's more successful will survive even animals that are stronger or more intelligent. That's true, of course, but stopping there is insufficient. There is an obvious corollary.

That is, between a species that is more intelligent and one that is more adaptive to continuous change, the one that is more malleable is better suited to a continuously changing environment, as our earth environs obviously is.

A necessary deduction from this is that most surviving species today survive because they are extremely adaptable - they can change phenotypical expression readily without changing their basic DNA make-up; that is, the hyper-adapatability of, say, dog physical forms is part of why they're a successful species. They're biological transformers.

Conversely, a species that has gone through a genetic bottleneck (say, cheetahs) are more vulnerable because their library of adaptive responses has been limited.

A necessary deduction from this is that most surviving species today survive because they are extremely adaptable - they can change phenotypical expression readily without changing their basic DNA make-up; that is, the hyper-adapatability of, say, dog physical forms is part of why they're a successful species. They're biological transformers.

Using the species that's probably most-modified by humans as an example of evolutionary flexibility, and indirect support for imaginary monkey ancestors that are equally likely to have flown out of your butt, is wildly wrong, and pretty stupid.

It's not an accident that domesticated animals tend to be split into multiple lines that would have been categorized as separate species, had we found them when we weren't as advanced as we are now. Look at all the different kinds of horses and cows, for instance. Humans made those things. The only thing that's evolutionarily special about those creatures is that they're willing to be domesticated.

All horses and cows and dogs can interbreed, to my knowledge, nor are they naturally separated by geographical features or reproductive behavior differences. He's saying that *phenotype* - the *expression* of genes as reflected in the body (shape, size, coat, etc.) can vary significantly within a species - human, dog, what have you. He's noting that adaptability is a hallmark of surviving species. He's right. For this, you're berating him.

You got his comment wrong, Malor.

(As a point of interest, I recently met a dog that was a Maltese-Standard Poodle mix. Even extreme phenotypical differences do not qualify as speciation.)

Right, but that's A) a useless argument to support imaginary monkeys, and B) the only examples I'm aware of with such extreme variability are creatures that were bred by humans. Only their long exposure to and association with us led them to the extremes they now show. In nature, they do nothing of the sort.

So pointing at all those dog breeds just doesn't say anything about evolution. Dogs are the best possible example of intelligent design.

Selective breeding does increase phenotype variation (variation in the expression of genes in the genome) within a species. It shows how *much* morphological variation is possible within a species. It speaks to the tremendous "back bench" of adaptability available within species.

I think the problem here is that Larry was saying "Chimps are not less evolved than humans", and he noted that human ancestors would look more human-like than chimp-like or ape-like, because chimps and apes are *not* direct ancestors to humans. This is due to the fact that the direct ancestors of humans were moving towards a more human morphology, rather than *from* an ape-like one (since, of course, apes were not the same then as they are now; they evolved as well).

You seem to have read that as "Human ancestors would not look like monkeys", but that's mistaking the point. (The idea that chimp ancestors look more like chimps than, say, bonobos or monkeys, would be the same, up to the general period of time where they had not diverged very far, but I don't think that would have caught your attention; the ad focused your thoughts, it seems.) From there the discussion blew up into crosstalk.

Dogs, like every other living thing we know of, are *poor* exemplars for intelligent design (posed in opposition to the process of natural selection), because the evidence for their evolution from previous ancestors via natural selection is strong. Anyway, I don't think Larry has made any unusual claims for evolution in the discussion; I think perhaps the context had both of you thinking about it in different ways, and reading statements differently from their intent.

Anyway, that's my take.

LarryC wrote:

phenotype:

(from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type') is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two.

Humans already display a wide phenotypical variety. Some have yellow hair, some have red. Some are short, some are tall. Some have protruding jaws, some have receding ones. Skin complexion, tone, and other qualities, through their range of expression is also a phenotypical variable.

FYI.

EDIT: I didn't say you were stupid, Malor. I said you couldn't identify critical thinking and couldn't appreciate it. If it makes you feel any better, rabbit on the CC has displayed the same. It's a matter of training, not intellectual aptitude.

sorry Malor, I jyst heard Kelso yell "Burn" when I read that edit he put in there. man that is definitely going to be in my sig when I get home (without names of course!)

Tea Party Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution and Big Bang Are “Lies Straight From the Pit Of Hell.” Why Yes, He Serves On the House Science Committee With Todd Akin

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

According to Broun, this science conspiracy is primarily designed to hide the true age of the Earth.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Note that he's a doctor, claiming to be a scientist, but saying that evolution is All Wrong.

And he's on the House Science Committee.

To fully experience the crazy you really need to watch the video it came from. The YE creationist sh*t starts around the 35 minute mark.

He's a medical doctor, too, like Dr. Ron Paul (who also has problems with evolution).

Yep. Saying you're a scientist doesn't make you one, or give you special insights.

I think the problem there exists on both sides of this debate; it's just a lot easier to see for what it is when the "scientist" is referring to the Bible as a scientific reference. Sheesh.

Malor wrote:

Tea Party Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution and Big Bang Are “Lies Straight From the Pit Of Hell.” Why Yes, He Serves On the House Science Committee With Todd Akin

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

According to Broun, this science conspiracy is primarily designed to hide the true age of the Earth.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Note that he's a doctor, claiming to be a scientist, but saying that evolution is All Wrong.

And he's on the House Science Committee.

This is not a troll, but, silver lining? He correctly uses "data" as a plural noun.

Malor wrote:

Yep. Saying you're a scientist doesn't make you one, or give you special insights.

Word. You get insight through work, not social taxonomy.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/10/4/-R19hzK8ekG3fj9OOotEbA2.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/30/dA57oLiDPk-dmZgoaAKoRg2.jpg)

More fun photos.

muraii wrote:
Malor wrote:

Tea Party Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution and Big Bang Are “Lies Straight From the Pit Of Hell.” Why Yes, He Serves On the House Science Committee With Todd Akin

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

According to Broun, this science conspiracy is primarily designed to hide the true age of the Earth.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Note that he's a doctor, claiming to be a scientist, but saying that evolution is All Wrong.

And he's on the House Science Committee.

This is not a troll, but, silver lining? He correctly uses "data" as a plural noun.

Arrgh! No! If using the word "data" as a mass noun is wrong, I don't want to be right.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/10/4/mLxMBxthuUuxiUbdoPndlA2.png)

My communication will be entirely pictoral.
*Except this
*and this
*and this/0

He's right about the cats; they have pretty stripes because of intelligent design.

But humans are the designers.

Malor wrote:

Tea Party Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution and Big Bang Are “Lies Straight From the Pit Of Hell.” Why Yes, He Serves On the House Science Committee With Todd Akin

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

According to Broun, this science conspiracy is primarily designed to hide the true age of the Earth.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Note that he's a doctor, claiming to be a scientist, but saying that evolution is All Wrong.

And he's on the House Science Committee.

It's 9,000 years old now? Did I sleep for 3 millennia? Guys, the future's pretty much how I left it. Still no flying cars, still a bunch of morons spouting nonsense.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

It's 9,000 years old now? Did I sleep for 3 millennia? Guys, the future's pretty much how I left it. Still no flying cars, still a bunch of morons spouting nonsense.

Welcome to the world of tomorrow!

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/10/19/6Rgza49q1UycgjQ7ArP7vw2.jpg)

You can't get the Bible to conform to science! You can only make science conform to the Bible! Get it straight, duh.

KingGorilla wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/10/19/6Rgza49q1UycgjQ7ArP7vw2.jpg)

Biblical literalism + rigorous physics = WIN!

Actually, what KingGorilla referenced is similar to the process used in making "Creation Science." You take a passage from the Bible, interpret it using current scientific knowledge that wasn't around during those times, apply some calculations, and then claim it's "SCIENCE." In this case, it's just kind of a joke, but let's not even jokingly pretend that that's science. Too many people get confused enough already.

LarryC wrote:

Actually, what KingGorilla referenced is similar to the process used in making "Creation Science." You take a passage from the Bible, interpret it using current scientific knowledge that wasn't around during those times, apply some calculations, and then claim it's "SCIENCE." In this case, it's just kind of a joke, but let's not even jokingly pretend that that's science. Too many people get confused enough already.

Oh come on Larry, you party-pooper, satire is off-limits now?

Jonman wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Actually, what KingGorilla referenced is similar to the process used in making "Creation Science." You take a passage from the Bible, interpret it using current scientific knowledge that wasn't around during those times, apply some calculations, and then claim it's "SCIENCE." In this case, it's just kind of a joke, but let's not even jokingly pretend that that's science. Too many people get confused enough already.

Oh come on Larry, you party-pooper, satire is off-limits now?

The satire isn't, but extra caution is advised when these things so easily fall victim to Poe's Law.