Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:

"Anne" <maxcharles@comcast.net> wrote in news:1141861356.470176.259660
@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Anne wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Anne wrote:

mel turner wrote:

"Anne" <maxcharles@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1141832267.445987.183240@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Stop The War wrote:

[snip]

This paper merely rehashes ID arguments
for why natural selection

What is the force behind natural selection?

Why think natural selection needs a "force" behind it? It's just
the effect of differential reproductive success among genetically-
and phenotypically-varying individuals in a population of
organisms.

If it's an effect, what's it's cause?

You need to learn to think outside the box, annie. WHY
do you think there needs to be a cause? WHO told you
that every "effect" has a cause?

Mr. Erikson, an uncaused effect is a contradiction in
terms. By definition an effect is something produced
by an antecedent cause.

An "effect", annie, is a *label* applied by humans to
something we observe. It may not be an "effect" at
all. This is much like your earlier misuse of "force".
People not well schooled in physics will talk about
the Coriolis Force, when the correct term is Coriolis
Effect because there is no "force".

Your statement above, that "an uncaused effect is a
contradiction in terms", is the product of your being
locked into a too-rigid paradigm. You are only *able*
to think in terms of cause-effect, but that doesn't
mean that everything we observe is an "effect" that
necessarily had a "cause".

An example of an uncaused effect.

Radioactive decay is the classic one. However your question "what
causes natural selection" would have the answer that natural selection
is "caused by" the existence of genetic variation in a population. If
all members of a species had identical genes then natural selection
would not exist. Nor would any of the other mechanisms of evolution
such as genetic drift. The genetic differences amoung members of a
population means that each individual may have some difference in
morphology, immune response etc. When a population encounters a threat
such as a new deadly disease, which for argument sake has a 30%
mortality rate, the individuals whose immune systems don't cope as well
with the disease are likely to have fewer surviving offspring in the
next generation. I.e you find that the percentage of those with alleles
for an immune system that is better able to fight off the new disease
become more common percentage wise. That is evolution by natural
selection. Experiments along these lines can be done in the lab. You
start with a culture of some microrganism and expose it to an agent say
an antibiotic at a dosage level that kills off a large proportion (but
not all) of the population. Keep repeating this and you find that the
entire population at the end is immune to the antibiotic at any
strength. Unfortunately this has happenned in the wild and there are
now many antibiotics that are useless to fight infection any more
because the bugs have evolved.

That's a good and helpful explanation. It's also a
total waste of time, because Anne isn't asking for an
explanation of the *mechanics* of natural selection.
She's trying, not at all subtly, to maneuver the
discussion in the direction of *who*, not what,
"caused" natural selection; and, of course, she already
believes she knows who. I'm really shocked that all of
the people who have tried to explain natural selection
to her - the *theory*, not the "event" - haven't seen
through her transparent ruse.

Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:

"Anne" <maxcharles@comcast.net> wrote in news:1141861356.470176.259660
@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Anne wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Anne wrote:

mel turner wrote:

"Anne" <maxcharles@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1141832267.445987.183240@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Stop The War wrote:

[snip]

This paper merely rehashes ID arguments
for why natural selection

What is the force behind natural selection?

Why think natural selection needs a "force" behind it? It's just the
effect of differential reproductive success among genetically-
and phenotypically-varying individuals in a population of organisms.

If it's an effect, what's it's cause?

You need to learn to think outside the box, annie. WHY
do you think there needs to be a cause? WHO told you
that every "effect" has a cause?

Mr. Erikson, an uncaused effect is a contradiction in
terms. By definition an effect is something produced
by an antecedent cause.

An "effect", annie, is a *label* applied by humans to
something we observe. It may not be an "effect" at
all. This is much like your earlier misuse of "force".
People not well schooled in physics will talk about
the Coriolis Force, when the correct term is Coriolis
Effect because there is no "force".

Your statement above, that "an uncaused effect is a
contradiction in terms", is the product of your being
locked into a too-rigid paradigm. You are only *able*
to think in terms of cause-effect, but that doesn't
mean that everything we observe is an "effect" that
necessarily had a "cause".

An example of an uncaused effect.

Radioactive decay is the classic one. However your question "what causes
natural selection" would have the answer that natural selection is "caused
by" the existence of genetic variation in a population. If all members of a
species had identical genes then natural selection would not exist. Nor would
any of the other mechanisms of evolution such as genetic drift. The genetic
differences amoung members of a population means that each individual may
have some difference in morphology, immune response etc. When a population
encounters a threat such as a new deadly disease, which for argument sake has
a 30% mortality rate, the individuals whose immune systems don't cope as well
with the disease are likely to have fewer surviving offspring in the next
generation. I.e you find that the percentage of those with alleles for an
immune system that is better able to fight off the new disease become more
common percentage wise. That is evolution by natural selection. Experiments
along these lines can be done in the lab. You start with a culture of some
microrganism and expose it to an agent say an antibiotic at a dosage level
that kills off a large proportion (but not all) of the population. Keep
repeating this and you find that the entire population at the end is immune
to the antibiotic at any strength. Unfortunately this has happenned in the
wild and there are now many antibiotics that are useless to fight infection
any more because the bugs have evolved.

That's a good and helpful explanation. It's also a
total waste of time, because Anne isn't asking for an
explanation of the *mechanics* of natural selection.
She's trying, not at all subtly, to maneuver the
discussion in the direction of *who*, not what,
"caused" natural selection; and, of course, she already
believes she knows who. I'm really shocked that all of
the people who have tried to explain natural selection
to her - the *theory*, not the "event" - haven't seen
through her transparent ruse.

Anne wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Anne wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Anne wrote:

mel turner wrote:

"Anne" <maxcharles@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1141832267.445987.183240@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Stop The War wrote:

[snip]

This paper merely rehashes ID arguments
for why natural selection

What is the force behind natural selection?

Why think natural selection needs a "force" behind it? It's just the
effect of differential reproductive success among genetically-
and phenotypically-varying individuals in a population of organisms.

If it's an effect, what's it's cause?

You need to learn to think outside the box, annie. WHY
do you think there needs to be a cause? WHO told you
that every "effect" has a cause?

Mr. Erikson, an uncaused effect is a contradiction in
terms. By definition an effect is something produced
by an antecedent cause.

An "effect", annie, is a *label* applied by humans to
something we observe. It may not be an "effect" at
all. This is much like your earlier misuse of "force".
People not well schooled in physics will talk about
the Coriolis Force, when the correct term is Coriolis
Effect because there is no "force".

Your statement above, that "an uncaused effect is a
contradiction in terms", is the product of your being
locked into a too-rigid paradigm. You are only *able*
to think in terms of cause-effect, but that doesn't
mean that everything we observe is an "effect" that
necessarily had a "cause".

An example of an uncaused effect.

No, annie. We know quite well that the effect -
annie's inability to consider that her paradigm is the
wrong one - has as its cause the anti-intellectual
religious indoctrination she experienced at a younger age.

If I go outside and look up and see something I call
the "sky", that observation is not an "effect" at all.

You are trying to be cagey and force the discussion to
an acknowledgment of some Prime Cause, and you're not
going to get there. *You* are the one with the
paradigm problem, annie.

And we *know* what its cause is, annie.

Isn't "effect"
sometimes something we create in our own minds?

You have a very limited view of the world, based on
your indoctrination into a *particular* and accidental
religious dogma.

Still, anyone is still free to believe that their preferred version of
God is behind all of evolution, and everything else for that matter.

There's nothing in evolution and natural selection or any other
science that requires or implies atheism. Plenty of "evolutionists"
are also theists. It won't ever be any part of the science, however.
This isn't a problem for chemistry or meteorology or developmental
biology, etc., so why should it be a problem for evolutionary
biology?

and evolution cannot explain the diversity
of life and then asserts that intelligent design is the only
alternative.

In other words, the usual creationist argument from incredulity, and
the usual distortions and misrepresentation of evolutionary science.

It's significant that there is no stand-alone ID research at all to
talk about, just a bunch of ill-founded attacks on mainstream
evolutionary biology. If ID did get equal time in classrooms, it
seems they'd have nothing much to teach. Perhaps they could combine
their time with the "moment of silence" sometimes offered in lieu
of school prayer.

[snip]

cheers

Anne wrote:

Stop The War wrote:

"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message news:Te-dnW9Hctgq75PZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever listen?

The "theory of intelligent design" takes about 2 minutes to explain.
I think it is fair to grant this much time in the science classroom to
this alternative theory.

Given its lack of rigor, one might expect that ID theory would
not inspire much scientific research. And there is virtually
none. Despite the claims of ID to be a program of research,
its adherents have published only one refereed paper supporting
ID in a scientific journal: a review of ID by Stephen C. Meyer,
the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science
and Culture, which appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington.

This paper merely rehashes ID arguments
for why natural selection

What is the force behind natural selection?

What does that mean?

Why, just as soon as they find a way to hide "that goddammed piece of
paper", as Bush may or may not have referred to the Constitution.

And take heart: they edge closer to disposing of it day by day now. Your
time will surely come.