It may not be that clear to its attendees that they’re being shown religious dogma instead of fact, right? That’s the problem, you’re free to believe whatever religion you like, but when you dismiss factual truth in its favor, then we’re into Fighting Ignorance and stuff.
If this were a museum of fundamentalist Christianity, there’d be displays of the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel there too - are there?
For the record, I’m agnostic. Thank god, because all the non-persecution in this thread would make me feel like a victim. But you’re right, I forgot about the right to mock people. Go ahead and enjoy yourselves.
Sorry I mis-interpreted your position, Hey You. I was projecting some of my anger over other things onto your post.
My reading of that chapter was that Darwin knew he needed a mechanism for inheritance, but did not have a solid one. I’ve always thought that the strength of evolution is shown by the fact that while he got that wrong, the actual mechanism explained evolution far better - I don’t see how a “somewhat” Lamarckian mechanism could handle variance as well as genetics does. It also shows that Darwin’s words are not holy writ, something the type of creationist who thinks that the Lady Hope myth would mean anything even if true don’t get.
If atheists started a “religious” museum that distorted Islam and Christianity half as much as this “science” museum distorts science, I wonder how tolerant the fundies would be? They’d be claiming oppression in a minute - or planning to burn it down.
Hmm… there’s something called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and it’s treated rightly as hate speech. You may have heard of it.
On the other hand, as long as you’re just sticking a crucifix in urine, I don’t think there’s much of a problem as long as no public monies are being used to support that display. Certainly, for all the anger and controversy concerning the display at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999, the extent of the backlash was to remove public monies from an exhibit set up deliberately to be as shocking and offensive as possible. Unless my memory is completely shot (which, alas is possible) no one was burned, or even fired.
Meanwhile, I am looking into setting up my own website: http://www.answersinguinness.com.
But, but but but but… What about those of us who can’t drink booze? 
(No, I’m not giving up my Effexor to get answers. Not even from Guiness. 
)
Well, I think if they opened a “centre” where they had displays of popular Bible stories and said they were true Because The Bible Says So, some might nod and say it was a waste of money but I don’t think it would get as much attention.
The mockery comes because this “museum” is not just showing people exhibits of religious dogma, they’re giving pseudo-science “facts” to show why mainstream science itself is mistaken. That goes way outside the realms of just religious belief IMO… if you claim you’re a scientist, you’re opening yourself up for peer review like the rest of science. I guess the people behind this museum, if they actually believe the stuff they are peddling (and aren’t just using it for a fast buck or to increase their ## of gullible followers) think that only the Good scientists work for them, and that the rest are really part of a vast anti-Christian conspiracy. Read the walk-through.
I mean…sheesh. Even if you don’t believe in evolution because it’s just a “theory,” there is about zero evidence for the Grand Canyon being formed by a giant, global flood or that mankind and t-rexes existed at the same time. It’s silly.
If they want to build it, then more power to 'em… but that’s not going to stop people from laughing at their supposed “science.” I don’t think anyone is making fun of them because they’re Christians.
Hardly what I meant. The movie Evolution was total bs, but being art (or an art-like object) no one tried to ban it. Hizzoner was pretty upset, IIRC.
Happening to be Jewish, I’m quite aware of the Protocols. I did not include Judaism since Christians have been distorting it long enough without my help. Anyhow, that libel would be analogous to the creationists saying nasty things about Gould and Dawkins, which they do not do, as far as I know. (Give them some credit.) My museum would have a nice exhibit on The Passover Plot and tread the daVinci Code as being true theology. It could do some nice quote mining from the Bible. I’m having a hard time thinking up other exhibits - the acheological results that refute the Davidic Kingdom and the Solomonic temple are well supported, and thus don’t belong in an analog to a creationist museum.
It’s a theory that’s part of the larger theory of evolution. Though it’s really more of a statistical observation than a theory per se.
But the point of raising it was to note another plausible mechanism for evolution that did NOT involve natural selection. Artificial selection is another: artificial selection is most different from natural selection in that AS can make use of foresight.
Artificial Selection was, in fact, one of Darwin’s prime illustrations of how selection (any sort of selection) could alter populations and hence lead to speciation. His insight when it came to natural selection was simply that the same non-random reproduction pressures that we impose on the animals we are seeking to alter can be imposed by the environment itself, without any need for anyone consciously skewing the results.
Given that Darwin had no model of genes and so forth, Artificial Selection was in fact his best alternative to demonstrating how selection could work to promote speciation, because without a model of genetics he couldn’t directly explain how traits got passed down to further generations. He suspected much that was on the right track (and some that was on the wrong track), but he didn’t live to see it really flushed out. What’s amazing is how much he was able to establish without knowing much at all about what would turn out to be the major confirmations of his theory (the fossil record and the genetic “Book of the Dead”).
Sorry, but natural selection doesn’t shape anything either. It isn’t something that does something. It simply is.
Well, pigs fly in a sense, I suppose, if you define fly to mean “wallow in mud”. For natural selection to fail, it would be necessary that those who are the best adapted to their environment be not the best adapted to their environment.
Those are not the same. Being well suited and adapting are not the same. Man is not well suited to live in Minnesota, but he adapts anyway.
No, they aren’t. Natural selection is the mechanism by which individuals who are best adapted to their environment survive, and therefore progenerate.
But four statements of fact and an inference do not comrise a syllogism. A syllogism is like this — all cats die; Tigger is a cat; therefore, tigger will die.
Then why are you picking at my definition of natural selection? Mine is the same as yours.
For every individuated entity that survives, it is impossible — metaphysically impossible — to deny that the entity was best suited for its environment. It, after all, survived.
And if my grandmother had balls, she’d be my grandfather. It is impossible for natural selection to fail because dead things don’t reproduce, but alive things do.
Not possible.
Oy. If that is the case, then the scientific method has become pseudo-scientific. If there is no way to determine whether your theory is false, then your theory will always explain everything to which it refers. It becomes like the theories of Freud and Adler, of which Popper wrote:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
It IS possible, and I explained how. Being stubborn is not making an argument, Liberal. You’ve resorted to covering your ears and going “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.”
That’s what he always does whenever he loses an argument.
I don’t know why anyone bothers to debate with him anymore.
Survive long enough to propagate, but not necessarily a second longer. And has been pointed out to you, natural selection works on populations. Not all individuals who are “best suited” survive, and not all who are not best suited by any measure except survival perish. A really fast eland baby might be randomly picked off before maturing. A slow eland might have the luck to be slightly faster than another one, and survive. Or he might live during a short period where there are few predators.
That’s where your definition differs. Your talking about individuals, he is talking about populations. As they say, the race may not go to the swift, but that is the way to bet. The best baseball team does not win every game, and the individual animal closest to what will eventually turn out to be the best set of characteristics for the environment may not survive.
Think of it this way - if only the best adapted to a particular environment survived to reproduce, the alleles for traits not best adapted would eventually be driven out. If this happens, then a change of environment would lead to the rapid extinction of the species unless there was some sort of super-mutation mechanism. However, if there are alleles in the population not best suited to an environment, due to chance, these could serve as the basis for an allele shift that would cause adaptation. It doesn’t always work, and species do go extinct, but it would hardly ever work under your model.
Mere survival is not sufficient for natural selection. If generations of creatures merely survived without any reference to particular traits enabling or disabling their survival, there would be no adaptation: these traits would not be favored or disfavored in successive generations. A particular non-random slice of the genome needs to surive for a particular causal reason in the face of a selection pressure for any adaptation to get going.
Natural selection does not work on individuals. It works on populations. A single individual can surive through plain dumb luck which, because the luck has no basis in the genome it passes on, confers no advantages to its offspring and does not lead to any adaptation. In fact, a single individual that suvives because of some particular trait also confers no extra advantages to its offspring from what it had before. It is only within the statistical skewing of populations by environmental conditions that any overall changes in the genome come about.
Natural selection is not seeking to prove that individual survivors are more fit: not seeking to bestow titles. It instead assumes that specific natural pressures acting on specific traits within a varied population will lead to differential reproductive success in the population. It isn’t enough in biology to simply note that a certain slice of a population surived. One has to establish that there was a particular REASON that that particular slice surived: show that it is a non-random selection but rather one caused by a particular environmental pressure. If you read biology journals, this is exactly the sort of dispute you hear. But if some creatures in a population got hit by freak meteors and some didn’t, there is no adaptation, because avoiding getting hit by meteors is not a variation present in the genome. Natural selection does not function as Darwin said it would.
Note again what Darwin actually said when he explained natural selection: “heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success.” Note that it is the variations that are said to be doing the work here, not any sort of post facto designation of fitness for the survivors. If there is no differential success (i.e. if the next generation is simple a random sampling of the last generation) then natural selection has failed to accomplish what Darwin said it should. If there is no variation in a population, natural selection will not function: the genome of the survivors will contain no new information compared with the past generation.
If we cloned and interbred dead things and put their offspring back in the population alongside the natural survivors, we would expect that evolutionary adaption would pretty much grind to a halt: we would be artifically recreating the situation in which heritable traits have no effect on reproductive success.
Well, a mechanism explaining the observation. Maybe instead of a theory it’s a lemma. 
My quibble was more with Lamarckianism as a mechanism for selection. I suppose a radical variety, in which individuals immediately acquired the “best” characteristics would be, but I thought that the proposal was for a more gradual change - in that giraffe necks grew a bit bigger each generation, not elongated in one. If there was variation in how much they grew between individuals, natural selection could still work, and Lamarckianism would need to explain only how the traits got inherited. I hope that is clear.
As for AS, I read those sections of the Origin too. The discovery of AS in the past would not rule out evolution, but only purely naturalistic evolution. One thing I don’t get about the proponents of intelligent design is that unless the designer set allele distributions for all species for all time, evolution would still work from whatever base of alleles he did set. I’m pretty sure Behe accepts this, though keeps quiet for fear of upsetting the only supporters he has. So ID supporters must like it not because it would falsify evolution, but because it would falsify purely naturalistic evolution, just as the discovery of poodle fossils would tell my hypothetical aliens that some intelligent entity had been meddling in the genome.
Only if we carefully did not inadvertently select for something - in which case we would be practicing artifcial selection with inheritence by cloning rather than sexual or asexual reproduction.