Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 56 57 58
Rhapsody Scarlet
Franquita del Mar
Although, some of the things I've heard about it so far kind of annoy me. Like the term "Darwinism." That's not the correct term. Darwinism takes Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution and applies it to the human race, i.e., "survival of the fittest" when it comes to class, jobs, etc. That distinction is important in a nation that's so easily swayed by compelling generalizations.

No, that's social Darwinism. Darwinism is a type of evolutionary theory, which was opposed early on by Lamarckism, another type of evolutionary theory. Darwinism itself led to neo-Darwinism, which eventually brought us to the modern evolutionary synthesis. Further refinement of the theory continues, but the basic ideas of natural selection and the heritability of favourable genetic traits have never been seriously challenged.


Thank you for the clarification, Rhapsody Scarlet. These terms were some "missing links" in our discussion with the creationists.
Franquita del Mar
I haven't seen the documentary yet, but I'd like too.

Although, some of the things I've heard about it so far kind of annoy me. Like the term "Darwinism." That's not the correct term. Darwinism takes Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution and applies it to the human race, i.e., "survival of the fittest" when it comes to class, jobs, etc. That distinction is important in a nation that's so easily swayed by compelling generalizations.

Also, I don't know. Maybe I'm biased because I don't believe in Intelligent Design is a viable theory for creation, but... The whole Intelligent Design thing bugs me a bit. Evolution is so widely taught because there has been endless amounts of evidence supporting the theory. And no one is saying that it's law except for people who aren't as educated as they should be on the issue. I would support Intelligent Design if there was proof. But that's the thing! You can't prove an intelligent Creator started life.

Darwin didn't say where life came from. He just said how different creatures changed over time to fit their surroundings. The origin of life is still a huge mystery, and people need to accept that. I don't care if you believe in God or not... I jut don't like all the stupid arguing about this by people who know a few facts and think they understand the entire issue.

-deep breath- Okay. That's all I have to say for now. xD



I think that there are a number of people on both sides of the issues who have not read On the Origin of Species but who think they know what evolution means. I am regularly seeing, on other threads, people using the term "evolved" incorrectly. There are still others who say they accept the theory but are not quite sure if they accept that "people are descended from monkies." blaugh

The monkey/man idea is still rampant. Human beings are primates, so how to go about explaining the meaning of our relationship to the rest of the animal kingdom without making our readers make the monkey/man shorthand account of descent is an issue.
EsgarBlackpoxs
mrsculedhel

My question remains: What harm does it do for people to be creationists outside of attempts to manipulate science. Just how can we agree that denial of advanced theorectical biology is a detriment to our politics, culture/society?

Not much, other than the afforementioned attempts to manipulate science and taint it. Though I would contend that Evolution is less "Advanced theoretical biology", and more along the lines of "basic tenent". Evolution is at the heart of quite a bit of Biology.

I will accept this answer.


mrsculedhel
I am not sure how this even impacts science overall, as scientists specialize in their own fields. How does evolution denial adversely affect technology/research and development?
It would, for example, make the medical society drastically inefficient at combating diseases. After all, those two viruses CAN'T be related. The study of ancestral biology would basically be abolished in a Creationist ruled science world.

A more theoretical answer would be that it if they were denying Evolution based on religous grounds, it would prompt scientists to start using religous answers instead of research.


I don't think that biologists and epidemiologists are going to back away from proven strategies because they were derived from evolutionary theory. I am pretty sure that even fundamentalist Christians will use whatever works, while at the same time finding some way to rationalize how it operates in their own minds or simply ignore its origins. Working with microbes and even animals such as rodents or birds are not really an issue with anyone. Animal breeding and genetic manipulation of plants and animals are cutting edge science that no one dismisses except extreme eco-paranoiacs who worry about meddling with mother nature. Do protestants have any dire worries about this? I think I read once something about putting human genes into other species might be a problem. Does anyone know more about this?
mrsculedhel
I don't think that biologists and epidemiologists are going to back away from proven strategies because they were derived from evolutionary theory. I am pretty sure that even fundamentalist Christians will use whatever works, while at the same time finding some way to rationalize how it operates in their own minds or simply ignore its origins. Working with microbes and even animals such as rodents or birds are not really an issue with anyone. Animal breeding and genetic manipulation of plants and animals are cutting edge science that no one dismisses except extreme eco-paranoiacs who worry about meddling with mother nature. Do protestants have any dire worries about this? I think I read once something about putting human genes into other species might be a problem. Does anyone know more about this?

Creationist scientists would continue to work with the fruits of the Darwinian tree, they could do no less and still make progress. The other poster was referring to replacing evolution with creationism, losing the evolutionary understanding of life, and starting again based of creationist principles...

A lot of research in biology would stagnate and revert to mere cataloguing of phenomena, without understanding. And without an understanding of evolution, medicine would be trial and error more than anything else.

Creationists, should they become the majority of scientists, could still make valuable contributions to science, if they continued to use the evolutionary paradigm, not otherwise.
mrsculedhel
I don't think that biologists and epidemiologists are going to back away from proven strategies because they were derived from evolutionary theory. I am pretty sure that even fundamentalist Christians will use whatever works, while at the same time finding some way to rationalize how it operates in their own minds or simply ignore its origins. Working with microbes and even animals such as rodents or birds are not really an issue with anyone. Animal breeding and genetic manipulation of plants and animals are cutting edge science that no one dismisses except extreme eco-paranoiacs who worry about meddling with mother nature. Do protestants have any dire worries about this? I think I read once something about putting human genes into other species might be a problem. Does anyone know more about this?


Making customized sequences of DNA is most easily done with a bunch of bacterial enzymes meant for breaking down the DNA they ingest. Now, what that means to anyone who isn't a Biologist is that we've got some chemicals that break up DNA.

So.... how? Well, to break up DNA they cut it- but it's not just straight across both strands of the DNA, it breaks one strand further up than the other so you have a "sticky end" just hanging out there. We can take two sources of DNA, use that chemical on them, and then put them together and they will be happy to stick their ends to each other (since each one of these cutter molecules always cut at the same sequence.)
-
Sometimes the two ends from the original thing meet up instead of the ones you wanted so if you don't have any way to pick out stuff of the right size you'd have to you stick these things into lots and lots of cells and then wait and see which ones got the strand you wanted.
Because of this it's really hard to go and put a gene into every cell of an adult organism but since we start off as one cell you've got some good opportunities to deal with an organism with few cells. In mice a lot of the time people would take half of the cells from a blastocyst, stick the genes in them, then wait for the mouse to grow into an adult. If you did something to, say, fur color, then you'd see a mouse with splotches of the different color fur all over them since it only had half of it's cells altered. Now, after the mouse had children you could tell which type of cells ended up as it's reproductive organs and if it's the kind that shows the changes you made then you've just got some mice that have that alteration in 100% of their cells.

We've got an awful lot of those chemicals so you pretty much just need to look at the DNA past the edges of the gene you want to put in something and then look at the genome of the target organism and find some section of junk DNA with the same sequences.
there would be some cases where you would want it in a particular location due to more complicated systems but for simpler purposes it doesn't matter very much where you put it as long as you kept the promoter region intact.

Putting human genes into other things could be rather useful, since you could make a plant that produces insulin and then a diabetic might be able to just eat that plant like they would any other and get their medication in that way.
Well... that's probably pretty unlikely for insulin since you need to control the dosage but you could still produce massive quantities of insulin then just separate it from the other plant stuffs.

We already share a lot of genes with animals and we even share a lot with plants so I'm not too concerned with inserting our genes into them. You don't have to worry about accidentally making sentient plants or anything since it takes a whole lot more than one gene to give us that quality- err, it's the way all of our genes interact with each other that makes us what we are more than the genes themselves. In the same way you wouldn't worry that putting atoms from a human into a plant would make the plant partially human... basically.

Now, it's putting genes from other sources into humans that raises some alarm. Right now we couldn't just grab the right combination of genes to make a cat-person but eventually that probably won't be beyond our ability. It's certainly not something anybody would call ethical right now though so I'm not worried about this either.
At current, about the biggest thing we can practically do to a human's genome would be adding in a gene that got rid of some genetic defect, such as cystic fibrosis- but even then we'd need some way of knowing that a couples next child was going to have that problem long before the child was born.
The way with the mice I mentioned above would be a pretty horrible way to do it with humans but some decades down the road we might just manufacture some altered viruses to go and stick target DNA into cells in a more automated way or we might have some totally unconceived of way to do it.

But as far as I know there aren't any target genes we know about in animals we'd want to stick in humans to create super-people anyway. Maybe in the future but right now we could do little more than guess and check anyway.
At current there's nothing really "big" we could do sans some ridiculous conspiracy theory grade projects that would only technically be possible.
Redem already covered most of the bases, so I'll just adress some very minor concerns

mrsculedhel

I don't think that biologists and epidemiologists are going to back away from proven strategies because they were derived from evolutionary theory.

They might be forced to if Creationism became the ruling *cough* "Theory" in the scientific community.

mrsculedhel
Animal breeding and genetic manipulation of plants and animals are cutting edge science that no one dismisses except extreme eco-paranoiacs who worry about meddling with mother nature.

A really, really minor point here, neither of those are exactly "cutting edge". Selective breeding has been around for about 2,000 years, and I've done genetic enginering in my high school Biotechnology class. Red Flourescent protein FTW.
EsgarBlackpoxs
Redem already covered most of the bases, so I'll just adress some very minor concerns

mrsculedhel

I don't think that biologists and epidemiologists are going to back away from proven strategies because they were derived from evolutionary theory.

They might be forced to if Creationism became the ruling *cough* "Theory" in the scientific community.

mrsculedhel
Animal breeding and genetic manipulation of plants and animals are cutting edge science that no one dismisses except extreme eco-paranoiacs who worry about meddling with mother nature.

A really, really minor point here, neither of those are exactly "cutting edge". Selective breeding has been around for about 2,000 years, and I've done genetic enginering in my high school Biotechnology class. Red Flourescent protein FTW.
Florescent proteins are real useful for figuring out what proteins do 3nodding
I saw the movie a few weeks ago with a friend of mine in the local theatre. After reading the first ten pages of response, I can only reinforce things that have already been said:

1. Intelligent Design is Creationism. It's the believe that an intelligent being created the world and everything in it. (Simplistically). Those who disagree often disagree because ID does not limit the creation to the Hebrew God, Yahweh. However, I believe it does because when the majority of people think of ID and the designer in question, they think of Yahweh.

2. Intelligent Design does NOT belong in the science classroom. That is not to say that ID does not belong in the classroom because, to be fair, if you are going to teach a religious class it might be reasonable to gloss over the subject. It does not belong in the science classroom because it is not a scientific theory. There is no evidence to both dispute it and repute it. If Ben Stein had made points in his movie that gave evidence to the contrary, he would not still simply be regarded as an actor but as the first man to have discovered the true origin of life. Where are all of his awards and medals for this incredible feat?

3. As it has already been stated, several times, Richard Dawkins does NOT believe aliens created the earth and everything in it. Hopefully, after every article that has been posted to give evidence of this, you are not still arguing that he does.

4. Darwin influenced Hitler during his reign in Nazi Germany and also encouraged Eugenics? Please. "Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation). " - Source Here


Honestly, the idea that creationism (or intelligent design as some people prefer to call it) should be taught in the science classroom is appalling to me. I would feel the need to pull my own children from the school if this were to ever become a reality. Because it is a supernatural standpoint (ie, religious), it is not a science. If anyone feels that they can make a supernatural standpoint a scientific one (with evidence and logic) please, feel free to do so. As anyone can see, however, this has never been done.

Also, forgive me, I haven't posted in the ED since 2004 and am a little rusty so if I grazed over topics already settled upon, I'm sorry. sweatdrop
Pika CHU!!!!
mathome88's avatar

Versatile Hunter

1,050 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
All the movie was for, is to allow people to find the truth in science and in life
no matter the out come of this battle.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games