Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
It's been fun. But I must move on to the Fred Head threads among others. These evo threads can be exhausting.
[[We aren’t talking about a school of fish where they are all trying to get in the middle, we’re talkiing about intelligent, sophisiticated animals that have evolved behavioral patterns specifically to ensure the continuation of a genetic line.]]
Oh I’m not disputing that they aren’t ‘intelligent’ but the argument is, to what extent is their intelligence? Hard coding self preserving, calculation for self interest behaviour only? One can work acting in an automatic manner only, and do things that do indeed benifit the group, but the automatic actions of individuals are self cenetered even though they benifit the group.
[[and self-interest tempered by group needs are vital to this animal’s existance.]]
and
[[how is this different from humans?]]
Selfless actions- that’s how- A wolf may barg into a fight where his pack leader is battling another wolf, and he might die, but he didn’t do it to save the pack leader because he felt sorry for the leader and wanted to help, possibly risking his life selflessly- he did so because without a pack leader, life would be more difficult for him. A human, seeing another human in trouble, would barge into danger truly acting for the benifit and well being of the one htey are trying to help. A stranger bursting into a flaming house to save the residents does so out of compassion and with no thought of benifitting- An objective universal moral code drives selflessness and is what seperates our actions from thsoe of animals with no concept of an objective universal moral code. See the difference?
[[These evo threads can be exhausting.]]
Very true.
Not quite sure why one would - it’s beyond the scope of evolutionary biology; a biochemist might be better equipped. I’m also not quite sure why you put quotation marks around the word “scientist”. But then I read your home page and realized you are a “lawyer”, so you don’t really know anything about “science”, other than what you’ve read in the “good book” (you know, the big black one).
What if the bricks were spherical? Then they would order themselves without any additional energy input or information. (And don’t say, “Cause bricks aren’t round” - I think you understand my point.)
You still aren’t seeing my point, perhaps I’m not being clear. Rushing into a burning house (or attacking threats to the alpha wolf) are in effect the same behavior on a different scale. It is through behavior such as this that societal order is maintained and the species is preserved. Why is it so difficult to believe that altruism in animals is any different from altruism in humans? (We are animals, after all.) And why is it hard to see how behavioral mechanisms can be the result of natural selection in both animals and in humans?
I have already admitted that my background is not in science. I can tell whether something was an accident or whether it was planned. I find that there are to many systems in place that work together, within the universe, to have happened by chance. I just can’t understand why some people just want to devalue the miracle of life. If life is a fluke, not guided by any hand, then everything we do is of no significance. If life is a fluke where does natural law fit in? I am talking of course about the morality of most societies such as it is wrong to steal, kill, etc.?
[[ It is through behavior such as this that societal order is maintained and the species is preserved.]]
The burning house annalogy isn’t an action of ‘preservation’ due to hardwiring for the preservation of hte group- the major difference is the conscience and the why the actions are being performed
[[And why is it hard to see how behavioral mechanisms can be the result of natural selection in both animals and in humans?]]
If all our actions were is nothign more than behavioral actions, then you would have a valid point, however, our actions aren’t behavioral simply because we make them based on a universal objective moral code- which, the moral code indicates a code giver, and if so, then our moral actions are not based on evolution but on a supplanting by a code giver- this is where the topic of morality starts to take a real serious turn from the behavioral argument and toiward an implanted morality and is what definitively seperates our actions from the automatic self centered actions of animals
You said to Dintre [[But then I read your home page and realized you are a “lawyer”, so you don’t really know anything about “science”, ]]
He doesn’t know anythign about science? And you know that how? How did you learn what you know?> By reading science articles and coming to an understasnding of CERTAIN issues that interested you- how do we know what we know? By reading science articles and coming to informed understandings of issues that interest us- One person has a degree, one doesn’t- but BOTH have read the same materials of interest, and BOTH have learned what htey know from others who wrote the articles- When one or hte other makes a VALID point- countering hteir VALID points by engaging in a petty off issue accusation that argues “You can’t opine here because you don’t have a degree” doesn’t cut hte mustard. Dmitry is asking a valid question- there have been NO life forms created by man or any other means for that matter that we can point to. Leave the snide arrogant remarks outside the forum
Entropy is essentially about the probabilities of outcomes of a random process.
I dropped a nickel on the sidewalk once. The probability of how it would land is of course 50% heads 50% tails.
But this one time it landed on its edge. And stayed on its edge until I picked it up.
So there's always the probability the if we randomally toss bricks or bowling balls into the air enough times we can get a neat stack.
Las Vegas was built by people whose goal was to get the neat stack.
I was not aware that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states the "guided energy" is required to decrease entropy. I would like to see the reliable physics-related source where this idea comes from.
The second law mandates that the system must go, on average, to higher states of entropy or remain in equilibrium (i.e. max entropy) sans an outside influence.
The second law does not say this. Here is a simple example of the contrary: formation of an ice crystal at 0 deg. Celsius requires a decrease in entropy of the water involved. No outside influence involved, just an increase in entropy of the environment. Many chemical reactions involve the same principle.
No one has shown that any part of evolution requires a system to decrease in entropy more than the increase in entropy of its surroundings. Without this, there is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Perhaps you could reference a source to the contrary, where the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is violated in a specific case without knowing the relative change of entropy of a system and/or its surroundings, or a source that demonstrates reliably that the 2nd Law states more that what can be encompassed by an overall increase in entropy?
I'm trying to use the strict definition of the 2nd Law as used by science. Is there another not commonly known, here?
Science has identified about 2 million species, but the estimates for unclassified species ranges from another 10 million, to perhaps 100 million! It’s almost inconceivable. If you went into your backyard and dug up a teaspoon of soil, you would probably have several hundred unidentified species of fungi and bacteria - in a teaspoon - in your yard; think about how big the planet is.
I am an atheist; do I think my life or life on earth has no significance? Of course not - in my mind there are few things more significant. Am I immoral, do I steal, cheat, or kill? No - thankfully I haven’t had to. Can I contribute to my family, my friends, my community and nation, to humankind? I hope so.
That's the/a difference between human and animal.. Animals can't play a PlayStation 2..Humans evolved to play a PlayStation2, IF they evolved at all.. They may have been MADE that way.. Which IS MY POINT..
“...toss bricks or bowling balls into the air enough times we can get a neat stack.”
Not quite what I meant. If you have a truck bed of a certain size, no matter how you throw the bowling balls, they will arrange themselves the same way each time.
Coyotes are smarter too!
They are dining on Beverly Hills pets while wolves are extinct or on life support in most of the US.
Humans didn't evolve to play a play-station..
A monkey could play a play-station with the proper game a monkey could grasp the rules too.. Like RAP is not music but merely shaking the bushes and making noises to simulate orchestration..
An animal can barely conceive of itself as an individual..
"GOD" is too abstract of a thought for an animal since belief in God requires faith..
Humans can believe in God.. NOT believing in God for a human is hard.. since that takes convoluted semantics..
Less evolved humans do not believe in a God.. making themselves "the GOD".. Which humans evolved to believe in..
“Ouch! Touche. That’s what [sic] they call it a “spell checker” and not a “smart checker”.”
LOL
(Just joking.. i really dont care about spelling/typing)
You”Well someone who values the truth would be able to answer fairly quickly. Yes, even if it destroys my world view, I want to now how things really are, not how I think they are.”
Others have responded to you better than my poor talents permit, so I’ll be brief. What you propose (I don’t say ‘favor’ or ‘advocate’ because your intellectual reasons don’t really matter in this context) excludes the possibility of either ‘value’ or ‘truth.’ In a meaningless universe (if by ‘pointless’ you have something other than meaningless in mind, please elaborate) neither ‘value’ nor ‘truth’ would exist, even as concepts. Come to think of it, it’s not at all clear to me how the idea ‘concept’ could function in a meaningless universe or what purpose it would serve (how can a purpose be served in a universe that has no purpose?). Elsewhere in this thread we have witnessed discussions referencing “the wrecking ball of nihilism.” It strikes me that the issue you raise (again, I don’t say ‘favor’ or ‘advocate’) is a pretty good example, and that the destructive ‘wrecking ball’ you’re slinging around is a fair-sized one at that.
In an earlier message I was struggling without success to recall a fallacy that fits the message you’ve been attempting to convey on this issue. At my age, I seem to experience the occasional ‘senior moment’ and a particular idea will refuse to come storming immediately to the forefront, but sometime during the night it manages to sneak up on me.
The fallacy is called “The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept,” first proposed and described by Nathaniel Branden in January of 1963 (so far as I know – it may have been introduced and discussed in earlier lectures or talks). The fallacy is defined by Branden as follows: “the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.”
In these present days, we might be inclined to use the term ‘hijacked’ in the place of ‘stolen’ to more aptly describe what you propose, but, either way, I think Branden’s description of what you’re doing is dead-on: hijacking a concept(s) while denying the concept(s) upon which it logically and genetically depends. Further, it strikes me that you appear to find a virtue in embracing a pointless existence which would, itself, render the idea ‘virtue’ non-existent.
Oh, I frequently stop by, if only briefly, but I don’t usually have a lot to say because you guys say it so much better than I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.