Steve McIntyre has the scoop:
According to the University of Victoria, Andrew Weaver says:
the next generation of his climate model will address the influence of climate on human evolution—much like it’s now being used to examine the influence of humans on climate evolution”.
In breaking news, Climate Audit has obtained exclusive information on output from the first runs of Weaver’s “next generation” climate model. These are the first known climate model predictions of the future of human evolution. The results are worrying: take a look.
Click image for a larger version
The devolution into Mannkind.
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
Michael Mann is having an influence on the evolution of man.
Uh Oh
Kappa Delta Rho at Penn (Penis) State U is in a “tight” over … “Naughty Naughty”. Again.
Josh’s cartoon with the “Mann” leading the parade may be admirable evidence in Pennsylvania Courts.
No Ha and BIG HA
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/penn-state-fraternitys-secret-facebook-photos-may-lead-to-criminal-charges.html?_r=0
Seems where Evha Mickey Mann Goes there is a Penis Fight!
Ha ha
Great cartoon. May I be the little boy who points out that the scientist has no clothes?
“scientist”?
As a Simple Red Neck, y’all need to help me out. Now Einstein’s theory of relativity is a theory that has neverbeen disproved. Evolution, on the other hand, is a fact with a 97% concensus and anybody who may doubt it is to be shunned. Do I have that right?
Not exactly, Jon. Evolution is, of course, a theory. Those who call it a fact are merely expressing their conviction that the theory of evolution is the only theory that can account for the facts known through real-world observations. I would generally agree with your implication that one should limit one’s assertion that something is a fact to observed events but of course justifiable implications from facts may still be true and if they are, one might be forgiven for claiming that the implication — or theory — is a fact. So we do legitimately convict accused, i.e.,”theoretical” murderers and deprive them of life or liberty. We may even call such convicts guilty “as a matter of fact.”
On the other hand, one may make a mistake in drawing implications — even those in a 97% consensus of opinion may be wrong. If you think they are wrong then you may wish to point out the errors they made in their observations or in the matter in which they drew their conclusions based on those observations. For example, you may be a “simple red neck” but if your neck is red from the radiation of the sun, and demonstrably so, you have at least that observation as a basis for proposing what it is that causes things to heat up on earth. Combine that observation with others and a solid way of drawing conclusions from those facts, and you will fit right in here, where, from my own observation, doubt is never shunned — but claims unsupported by observed facts may well be.
Evolution is both an observed fact and a theory explaining that fact, just as gravity is an observed fact with a body of theory explaining it. The theories of gravitation and evolution are thus both explanations for scientific facts, What is hard to understand about that?
As for “censorship” on this blog, the “Slayers” are banned, so why not the even less scientific spewers of creationist lies?
Sturgis Hooper
And why is it necessary for you to claim any creationist has lied? Why do you care if they believe an origin of something you cannot explain is something different than what you believe in?
Are creationists going to be responsible for harming billions of innocents by artificially raising energy prices and deliberately restricting energy usage to the rich so the elite rich “feel” better about their imaginary CO2-restricted Gaea-heaven of perfect equilibrium at some pre-industrial level of 280 ppm CO2?
If you disagree with any proposed theory of life that does not affect your life and the health of those around you, ignore it.
takebackthegreen wrote: “An individual of one species cannot mate with an individual of a different species and produce fertile offspring.” [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/17/hot-news-evolution-cools/#comment-1885852]. That is a useful definition for some purposes but if it were that simple it would be impossible to distinguish different species of organisms that reproduce asexually, which, needless to say, is not the case.
Sturgis Hooper, to say that evolution is a fact is true, but to say it is an observed fact is something of a stretch. Radical genetic change has been observed, of course, but those are observations supporting the theory of evolution, which, when combined with an uncountable large number of other factual observations and proven theories make a case for the large-scale evolution of life from simple to complex, niche to niche, and so on irrefutable given our current knowledge. Not all facts are observed facts.
You think creationsts should be banned. We have nothing to learn from them? If you can’t keep your mind open even a splinter to those whom you are convinced are wrong, then please stick around here and explain why that is, since it will help us enormously to understand the CAGW mentality. As for your unscientific “spewers of creationist lies”, why do they bother you so much? Afraid you will be associated with their primitive level of scientific reasoning even though you have explicitly rejected it? Are your feelings also hurt by the warmist claim that people with your views on CAGW also reject connection between smoking and health problems? Believe the earth is flat? Don’t you see the fallacy of ignorance by association?
Is creationism a uniquely distressing display of ignorance? How do you feel about economists who reject Ricardo’s Law? And perhaps you have forgotten that creationism is not the only alternative to evolutionism, there is also eternalism, such as that of Aristotle, which says that the cosmos, the earth, and the species we know, for the most part, have always existed. Needless to say, there are an uncountably large number of observations that refute that theory as well, but while those two false theories may not help you understand nature, they certainly help you to understand the human quest to understand our place in the universe. Did it ever occur to you that you may persuade a doubter to embrace the truth by asking him what are the bases for his beliefs? Don’t you wish warmists would have that attitude towards CAGW skeptics?
Of course if you can show that creationists really do spew lies, i.e. that they know what they are saying is false, then you have grounds to despise them. But what makes you say they spew lies, rather than ignorant falsehoods?
Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect? You should look it up. I also constructively suggest that you research the current state of our knowledge about evolution. Read “The Greatest Show on Earth” for example. It is very, very enjoyable reading. Not a chore at all.
You will see that many of the things you say are just not true.
Once upon a time, there was a 97% consensus that Newton’s Laws were The Answer. And anyone who said that time could speed up and slow down and that gravity could bend light had to be barking mad. Until they were not. My real point was that, while DT seems to be the best theory to date, maybe it is not, and just maybe the arguments here are pointless. Albert E. is quoted as having said that 100 facts can’t prove me right, but one fact can prove me wrong. Can’t we all just get along?
What origin do you imagine I can’t explain?
It is a fact that creationist lie, including those on this blog.
It’s a science blog, so liars should be called out.
Proposing that God created species individually isn’t a scientific theory useful as an alternative to the fact and theory of evolution.
Creationists do indeed threaten the lives of billions. If they had their way, there would be no biological or medical science. MRSA would be a mystery. Islamic fundamentalists are also creationists.
But the point is that a science blog shouldn’t allow anti-scientific liars to pollute it, giving ammunition to its Warmunista opponents who claim that this blog is anti-scientific.
There is not a shred of evidence in support of creationism and all the evidence in the world against it. All the evidence in the world supports the fact and theory of evolution, and there is so far none against them.
The previous was in response to RA Cook.
RalphB March 17, 2015 at 10:50 pm
Creatioinsts are indeed ignorant yet feel competent to comment upon subject they’ve never studied. Many on this blog have repeatedly been shown that their assertions are ludicrously false, yet they keep making them.
Of course I can show that the professional creationists from whom the amateurs here get their lies are liars. Recently in the comments to another post a creationist posted video of a shameless liar, Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, a pack of professional liars. Meyer cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that proteins don’t form at random, but are assembled inside cells using DNA, RNA and various enzymes. Yet ignoramuses credit the lies of the DI and other charlatans preying on their lack of scientific education.
Ralph and Jon.
It is not a stretch to call evolution an observation. It has been observed repeatedly and constantly at least since 1798, when Cuvier demonstrated the fact of extinction. Decades before Darwin, it was already known that what was then called “development” has occurred, eg. that the assemblages of species found in Cambrian rocks is different from those living today. What was in dispute was whether “transformation” occurs, ie existing species give rise to new forms. This hypothesis wasn’t accepted not just for religious reasons but because a good explanatory mechanism hadn’t yet been discovered. Lamarck failed to provide one, leaving the field to Christian divines like Darwin’s geology mentor Sedgwick, who believed in serial creation, ie that God made new species over time.
Darwin and Wallace’s discovery of natural and sexual selection provided explanations for many of the observed “transformations”, and still do today, although evolutionary theory has moved far beyond its status in 1858.
Evolution is not only a constantly observed fact in nature, but can be done in the lab, both making new species and recreating speciation events in the wild. Polyploidy is one of the most common evolutionary processes:
http://polyploidy.biosci.utexas.edu/polyploidy.php
The Livescience article is wrong about animal hybrids, but accurately reports the recreation in the lab of a naturally occurring hybrid species.
http://www.livescience.com/800-scientists-create-butterfly-hybrid.html
Among the many natural speciation events recreated in the lab are the creation of nylon-eating bacteria from sugar-eating ancestors, by making the same mutations that occurred in the wild.
Evolution has also been observed in labs by letting microbe populations evolve on their own over longer periods of time, rather than in a single generation, as with polyploidy in plants and single point mutations in bacteria.
Evolution is a fact. Today science doesn’t have to look at fossils, embryology or islands to see it in action, although of course it is the only inference possible from the many such classic observations, to include excellent records of many major transitions in the history of life.
As to Einstein amending Newton, the equivalent in evolutionary theory happened shortly after that correction to gravitational theory, with the development of the so-called Modern Synthesis, combining statistics, ie population genetics, with classical darwinian evolutionary processes.
It would be helpful if people choosing to comment on biology had actually studied the subject.
“Assemblage” should be singular, obviously.
@Sturgis Hooper
Likening the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity is a mistaken analogy. We have a theory of gravity and observational facts both of which are in effective complete agreement. While the theory of evolution has many observable facts to back it up it cannot be said that these observable facts match the theory to anything like the extent to which they do in the case of gravity (a far less complex theory). I think you are well over-egging the cake with your analogy.
You are wrong.
Hoplite,
Comparing the theories of evolution and gravitation is perfectly valid.
Evolution was improved by the invention of a new system of statistical mathematics, which has proven to be of great value in other areas, just as happened with calculus.
Allele frequencies in the next generation can be calculated with great accuracy and precision, thanks to population genetics.
The Modern Synthesis of darwinian evolutionary theory with population genetics based upon the laws of inheritance is comparable to Einstein’s relativistic improvement on newtonian gravitational theory.
Maybe you could elaborate a little on the differences you see that I don’t. They could be due to your greater familiarity with physics than biology.
@Sturgis Hooper March 17, 2015 at 4:21 pm. Sounds a bit dodgy to me and a lot like censorship by the global warming crowd. Do you feel you have the right to say what should and should not be allowed on a science blog owned by someone else? I understand the moderators catching pornography, profanity, etc.,and trolls and sending them packing. I think you protest too much.
I’m glad that this blog permits creationist comments. Nothing will change the minds of anti-scientific fundamentalists who oppose evolution based upon their faith rather than the facts. But there could be some here who are willing to learn and might be surprised by the enormous and ever-growing evidence in support of the origin of species by means of natural selection and the many other evolutionary processes.
I recall that after the Dover Intelligent Design trial over ten years ago, even college educated reporters were surprised by how overwhelming the evidence is for evolution, and that there isn’t any against it.
I think evolution definitely happens, but that neoDarwinism as an explanation for macroevolution is as much a crock as the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is the greatest evil of our time. No, I’m not a creationist: we just don’t know, and that’s the truth, though to be sure, they evolved somehow. Perhaps one day we’ll find out.
But that aside, this is a clever cartoon–well done, Josh!
I don’t what you imagine NeoDarwinism means, but evolutionary theory does as good a job of explaining observations as does the theory of gravity as amended since Einstein.
If you imagine there are problems with the theory, please state them.
Sorry. Typing on a phone. Left out out “know”.
John Kerry is such an embarrassment to me as well. Politics, especially the US Congress proves that the braindead can be successful politicians. RE: Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a complete scientifically illiterate tool being used by groups that will funnel him money for his campaigns.
John Kerry and Barack Obama will no doubt face harsh criticism in the history books as complete idiots on science.
money provides a competitive advantage. trial by combat is still the basis of our legal systems. though we use lawyers instead of knights to wage battle. He that can hire the strongest knight will often prevail over the opponent in the right.
Thanks Josh, now we can see the face of devolving human intelligence : http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
We have to be sceptical of all science if we are to advance. I am not a God botherer, I have seen fruit flies living in cages supposedly made from crystallised DDT, I am pretty well convinced about evolution, but then I see crabs evolving in to land animals. Is it lack of beach front property or some ghastly sea trapped predator? It actually looks like they have just decided it is the way to go. They are pushing the limits of their DNA and waiting for mutation. Boldly going where no crab has gone before. Do they know something we do not?
Crabs have been a remarkably successful outcome of evolution. The fossil record indicates a pre-Jurassic origin and since then they have evolved into many species capable of living in all the oceans of the world, on land and in fresh water. They have quite simply spread into every conceivable environment including the foliage of coconut trees in the south pacific. Any grouping that has survived over 150 million years is doing something right. As to why they moved to land the answer seems fairly straightforward. In the intertidal zones they have many enemies. Octopi and Squid simply love crabs as do seals but they have a hard time reaching them in a coconut palm 🙂
Expressed by Willshaw is the tautological nature of “evolution” mentioned earlier in comments: the answer for anything and everything is the same: whatever unlikely observation is noted, the True Believer in evolution has a ready answer: “It is God’s Will.”
No, sorry – wrong faith.
It is: “Because it contributed a reproductive advantage.” [“Once upon a time long, long ago.”]
Repeat for any question: the woodpecker’s nostril-scarf-tongue, the wisp that is a butterfly navigating thousands of miles in daylight in front of how many birds for how many days to winter in the tropics, and so on.
I admire the faith of those True Believers in this tautology: it is because it must be. It must be so consoling to quiet the anxiety of existence with such explanatory tales of just-so.
Democrat,
Either you don’t know what tautology means or you don’t know anything at all about evolution or both.
It is possible to think up stories explaining the origin of various anatomical features or behaviors, but in most cases, that isn’t necessary because there is ample evidence showing precisely how innovations arose. This is the case, as noted, for many major transitions, such as tetrapods from lobe-finned fish, mammals from “reptiles” (actually synapsid amniotes), birds from theropod dinosaurs, whales from terrestrial artiodactyls, etc. Reconfirming evidence is often available from different lines, such as embryology, fossils and genetics.
In actuality, it’s often the reverse of the case which you imagine. Science can watch evolution in the act but doesn’t always know what selective advantage might have been associated with the innovation, or if it resulted strictly from stochastic processes or reproductive isolation. In other cases, however, the selective advantage is obvious, as for instance in the case of the evolution of the woolly mammoth from the steppe mammoth as climate got colder.
Crab evolution is no different from the evolution of land vertebrates, ie tetrapods, from lobe-finned, coastal marine fish in the Devonian or the invasion of the land by the ancestors of spiders and insects in the Silurian.
For those willing to question/criticize the Darwinian theory (DT) of evolution on scientific grounds, please check the Macroevolution web site (http://www.macroevolution.net/table-of-contents.html): there are hundreds of science papers together with comprehensive explanations for why DT, while not false, is incomplete (a trivial point in epistemology) and a step by step description of a novel approach of the problem of species.
Ludicrous garbage. Sorry.
I don’t see why “Evolution” cannot possibly be the MECHANISM of “Creation”.
But that’s just the dysfunction of an open mind.
Yeah, evolution is a fairly solid theory – the main issue I have with it is that is does have some significant questions that should be acknowledged in the classroom, but aren’t. Abiogenesis – how “simple” (no such thing) life capable of reproducing itself came into being in the first place – is a whole different story. That, in my opinion, is where science becomes the equivalent of the CAGW movement. It’s now basically – “because we said so!” which, after all the layers of the onion of both the CAGW movement and the abiogenesis movement are stripped off, is what remains – “because we said so!”.
“One day, he [Stanley Miller] vowed, scientists would discover the self-replicating molecule that had triggered the great saga of evolution….[and] the discovery of the first genetic material [will] legitimize Millers’s field. “It would take off like a rocket,” Miller muttered through clenched teeth. Would such a discovery be immediately self-apparent? Miller nodded. “It will be in the nature of something that will make you say, ‘Jesus, there it is. How could you have overlooked this for so long?’ And everybody will be totally convinced…”
Miller, of the famous 1953 “Miller Urey” experiment
F
rom the wiki page on abiogenesis:
“Based upon such experiments, Colin S. Pittendrigh stated in December 1967 that “laboratories will be creating a living cell within ten years,” a remark that reflected the typical contemporary levels of innocence of the complexity of cell structures…”
I probably could find other quotes if I felt so inclined to spend the time, but you get the idea…
However, when it comes to abiogenesis, the trend of the last number of decades is NOT your friend – both the biology and also the stats
I’d invite anyone who is interested to do their own research on this issue – reading both the “true believers” and the skeptics – and come to their own conclusions. There is plenty of scientific material out there that discusses how likely it is that simple life “came into being” without intelligent intervention on earth. In my opinion, the “true believers” stance boils down to “Because we said so!”, the skeptics have a lot of ammo on their side – but that’s just my opinion, please read info from both points of view and decide for yourself. Just like CAGW – don’t simply swallow and believe the propaganda – look carefully at the science, the actual data, how truly realistic and valid the various experiments, models, and proofs of concept really are, and what relevance they actually have, consider the enormous complexity of “simple” life and how it is being found to be more complex with every decade, and the actual trends in all these areas, and use your own brain.
Clearly you have not taken your own advice and actually studied origin of life research.
Speaking of origin of life research, this paper has gotten some ink recently. Nature Chemistry has made it and a previous related study fully available on line:
Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism.
http://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2202.epdf?referrer_access_token=6UyqGsU4pXqc8sfwe1RrHdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NIo3js7EMAlL7iCggjrUCBrW4ZYTThpc_6DIsDphT9-A1BfL9NwZH8DLA1qmS-mFJSmY_r7_REqDO0W-NgqQ41BcezUDi2H0ILyguqM67PmKg3u4Zyl0LsPNDFw0rZrhVz744QBMtFCv048nn_WhWK2S1q-v2r7llTu2ClJOfnVADbgw41CGKSkUQNrtY4THI%3D&tracking_referrer=news.sciencemag.org
Only the abstract is available for a prior article on the spontaneous formation of RNA in ice:
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v5/n12/full/nchem.1781.html
Mechanisms of molecular self-replication have the potential to shed light on the origins of life. In particular, self-replication through RNA-catalysed templated RNA synthesis is thought to have supported a primordial ‘RNA world’. However, existing polymerase ribozymes lack the capacity to synthesize RNAs approaching their own size. Here, we report the in vitro evolution of such catalysts directly in the RNA-stabilizing medium of water ice, which yielded RNA polymerase ribozymes specifically adapted to sub-zero temperatures and able to synthesize RNA in ices at temperatures as low as −19 °C. The combination of cold-adaptive mutations with a previously described 5′ extension operating at ambient temperatures enabled the design of a first polymerase ribozyme capable of catalysing the accurate synthesis of an RNA sequence longer than itself (adding up to 206 nucleotides), an important stepping stone towards RNA self-replication.
This Nature Chemistry paper was preceded by a notice in Nature Communications:
A crucial transition in the origin of life was the emergence of an informational polymer capable of self-replication and its compartmentalization within protocellular structures. We show that the physicochemical properties of ice, a simple medium widespread on a temperate early Earth, could have mediated this transition prior to the advent of membraneous protocells. Ice not only promotes the activity of an RNA polymerase ribozyme but also protects it from hydrolytic degradation, enabling the synthesis of exceptionally long replication products. Ice furthermore relieves the dependence of RNA replication on prebiotically implausible substrate concentrations, while providing quasicellular compartmentalization within the intricate microstructure of the eutectic phase. Eutectic ice phases had previously been shown to promote the de novo synthesis of nucleotide precursors, as well as the condensation of activated nucleotides into random RNA oligomers. Our results support a wider role for ice as a predisposed environment, promoting all the steps from prebiotic synthesis to the emergence of RNA self-replication and precellular Darwinian evolution.
Origin of life research is IMO under-funded but still has made great progress in recent years.
It sounds like people here generally accept the idea of variations within species, that is, developing new traits by genetic alteration. After all, food crops, and domesticated animals all demonstrate the effectiveness of selective breeding. The hang-up seems to be speciation. What permits animals to mate and produce viable offspring? Haploid gametes mix and the resulting diploid cell should have chromosome pairs with sufficiently similar genetic information that the organism can grow, divide, and function all the way through producing its own offspring.
What would prevent formation of a viable organism? In interphase, DNA molecules can rearrange by cross-over events between homologous sequences. Unless the supposedly homologous chromosomes are almost identical, when cells divide, the chromosomes can have two centromeres and break, have none, or otherwise segregate genetic information unequally. Speciation could occur when a subpopulation interbreeds with a sufficiently large chromosomal rearrangement that only mating within the subpopulation can produce viable offspring with high probability.
The new “species” would look identical to the main population. The difference is, now mating is decoupled from the main population and variations progress independently. I have no doubt someone could perform such an experiment in the lab with mice, for example, to produce a new species. They would look exactly the same until karyotypes were compared.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas apes have 24. One of our chromosomes has a cryptic centromere, evidence that it once was two separate chromosomes. It’s lucky for us only one of the centromeres is functional, or we would not live long.
Humans are apes. You mean other great apes have 24 pairs.
The fusion of two standard great ape chromosomes to create the human #2 appears to be associated with our upright walking.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11598-006-9021-x
This paper also shows that evolutionary science is as far from tautological as possible, since the author challenges the then prevailing “just so story” about the development of upright walking in evolution of our australopithecine ancestors.
Seventy years ago the Yalta Conference took place in the Crimea, held February 4–11 1945.
?oh=9e3c1b31d2a8a06185307541ded31c74&oe=55721115&__gda__=1434620
Here we see F.D. Roosevelt, the American president, on his way from the airport to Yalta. There was no snow then in February 1945, but seventy years of “unprecedented global warming” later, the Crimea is covered with snow in March and battered by blizzards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference
Social network users are uploading photos of a snowy Crimea.
According to the Ministry of Energy, due to adverse weather conditions (strong winds of 20-25 m / s, snow) mass outages occur in the distribution networks of 6-10 kV (GUP RK “Krymenergo”).
Residents remained without electricity in 13 settlements of Feodosia, Kerch, Sudak and Leninsky districts – about 18 ,250 people. Total power outages is 13 MW.
http://iceagenow.info/2015/03/crimea-covered-snow-18000-lose-power/#comment-293248
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2015/03/17/7061792/
http://img.pravda.com/images/doc/3/4/34646b9-11022896-621326654635165-889033868-n.jpg
http://img.pravda.com/images/doc/b/4/b448df3-11008172-842465179154077-750503002-n.jpg
http://img.pravda.com/images/doc/0/4/044704f-914483-1591427984435973-1355860903-n.jpg
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
The definitive line in the sand for “species” is simple (sort of), and can be summed up in two words: “reproductive isolation”. Organisms that are phenotypically and genotypically incompatible define the speciation layer. Since evolution is a continuum there are always examples of where this line is indistinct. Biological science is well “settled” in describing these relationships, while at the same time, readily recognising the plasticity of the continuum. Darwinian evolution is solid science, demonstrable in the lab and observable in the real world at both the population and at the individual level. Mystic explanations, like the church of AGW, may be good for your soul, but contribute little to your intellect. Recommended: amongst other things, a good course in comparative anatomy. if you can find one.
Expect the Sue Birds to be up in arms over this. Canadian courts have spoken. You cannot make fun of academics, not matter how wrong they might be.
I saw that one in an old New Yorker, entitled “The Rise and Fall of Man”, with WJ Bryan at the end. Works well with Man(n), too, come to think of it.
Why should religious beliefs be accommodated here?
I appreciate all of the reasonable points posted already.
But how about another: at least tolerate your bothersome old aunt a couple times a year – she loves family at holiday time so much; the truth is that science, itself, and great areas of scientific inquiry, were developed by Christians, nay even Catholics in some cases, truth be told.
Scientists might as readily turn their backs on the English language in favor of Esperanto, never looking back.
As if English has a lot going for it, like am, is, are, was, were, may, can, might, should, could, would, do, did, does, have, has, had, be, being, been,
great cartoon…as to the comments. Is it really necessary to be provocative at every turn and divert discussion into areas where views are either irreconcilable or require an answer to “first mover” issues of philosophy? Feels an awful lot like what goes on on both sides of the aisle on capitol hill and we know that accomplishes nothing.
One does not have to look far to find a “scientist” who expresses a great deal of contempt for religion and/or faith as the weaker way to understand the universe. Some express it with a bit of caution so as to try not to offend, while others will callously and defiantly proclaim science’s superiority without any thought of how offensive it may sound. But whichever the expression, the heart of the argument is the unassailable purity of science as the discipline based upon facts and reason contrasted with religion’s liability of reliance upon faith.
The irony is that a careful examination of the foundations of each reveals that the two are not that altogether different, and in the final analysis it may be the practice of “science” takes the largest leap of faith to achieve. Full disclosure: I was schooled in engineering (though not practicing), and am a faithful Christian. But before you dismiss me and reach for that mouse and presumptively click away before finishing this article, I would remind you that the scientific method challenges you to consider all possibilities before reaching a conclusion.
So let us delve into the foundation of the scientific method and the tool that scientists use to stand upon a bed rock of certainty while casting a doubting eye towards religion. At the heart of the scientific method is to “accept nothing but what you can prove”, then sets forth a methodology by which all theories are to be tested. It has standards for defining facts, assumptions, logic, and parameters of statistical analysis and verification. The end goal is producing repeatable, and therefore verifiable, results. It therefore is easily adopted by any rational, logical person. It is the basis of physics, chemistry, etc.
But the cornerstone of all science is an unwritten assumption that must be implicitly adopted in order for any of it to work: The cosmos is built and acting upon a rational and consistent physical set of rules which can be known and derived. Gravity is. Chemical bonds work. Energy transfers. These, and many other things, simply are…and consistently are. Scientist go about studying these phenomenon to determine what they are and how they work, but never bother with the “why” because it is simply accepted as “is” and always will be. It is an assumption that is so fundamental that it isn’t even mentioned in the “assumption” section of their publications.
Consider for a moment that this foundational assumption is not true, and our cosmos as we know it exists in a temporary altered state that is fundamentally different from the true nature of matter and energy. Perhaps our positively charged cosmos is a temporary state that exists in the high energy flux created in the splitting from the negatively charged alternative cosmos, and the laws of matter and energy will have entirely different attributes when the two are ultimately rejoined into a neutral charge state. Our cosmos may be an experiment of its own, and we are like the microbes floating in the proverbial petri dish of some other entity who has manipulated the conditions to produce states of matter that ordinarily wouldn’t exist. In such circumstances (or many others we could imagine), “science” is producing erroneous conclusions by failing to qualify them with the assumption of a steady-state.
It is entirely logical to accept that whatever truths about the cosmos that have existed for so long and so consistently will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and therefore it is rational to adopt conclusions with that as an assumption. But is it correct? We cannot know, so we have to accept it in order to conduct the rest of science. However the acceptance of that assumption is an act of faith.
A scientist could point out that the above is mere conjecture, a contrived hypothetical meant to tear at the fabric of the cosmos enough to cast mythical doubt at the fundamental nature of matter, and the true nature of the cosmos may just as (if not more) likely be what we know it to be today. And they would be right. I can no more prove my position than they could prove the contrary. But as scientists we can’t accept either as “true” because we must only accept that which we can prove. Adopting the current state of the cosmos as “true” is an act of faith.
A second perhaps more important point is that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. To stereotype all those with faith as zealots who blindly and dogmatically practice religion is a gross mischaracterization. It is akin to equating a thoughtful and open-minded scientist practicing his craft to a seventh grade “science” teacher who spouts whatever happens to be written on the textbook page without a serious understanding of the science.
History is full of examples of people who were devoutly, religiously faithful and serious scientists who developed meaningful advances in knowledge of the physical world. For each of the famous examples I assure you that there are many more anonymous people who find no contradiction in science and faith. Indeed it may be true to that someone with a closed mind to faith likely lacks the insight and perspective to be truly open-minded about science, thereby limiting what they can learn through science.
My last point is that knowledge without wisdom is perhaps the most dangerous circumstance. Without a conscience to guide them, amoral scientists are free to discover without thought of the consequences of their actions. Be it carelessness leading to danger, or willful disregard giving rise to villainous use of science, in its purest form “science” is not bound by wisdom. The scientific method is an ethical practice, not a moral one, and history also shows examples of the destruction this can bring. The only check to this is morality, which is rooted in faith.
To be clear: science and the scientific method seeks to understand the cosmos as we know it, and the advances in knowledge and technology is a large benefit of that effort, and for that we all should be grateful to those scientists. But any scientist who claims arrogantly that they hold the superior method of understanding is engaging in a dangerous level of hubris and is failing to recognize just how much of their craft really relies upon faith; that faith and science are not incompatible; and that science without the wisdom of faith is extremely (occasionally wickedly) dangerous.
If the above has not swayed those hardened scientists out there who look down upon faith to reassess their position, then respectfully submit that they are not availing themselves to the fullness of science by having an open mind. Science requires that we always check our assumptions and be open to the possibility that previous “knowns” are not correct, and that by closing your mind to the possibilities of faith you may not be able to learn all that you could. Regardless, I shall pray for you.
Sad.
Excellent and profound post HBooth. One of the most profound and insightful I have seen here on this website. Ultimately, faith is an integral part of every person’s life even if they don’t believe in God at all. It is a Cartesian delusion that life with absolutely no faith can be lived.
As an aside, I really only came to the whole CAGW thing as I was bothered by the attitude of the pro-CAGW people with their arrogance and dismissiveness and a level of certainty that I felt was simply not intelligent. I know the evolution debate is very very different (and personally I have no issues with it from faith or scientific perspectives) but the attitude and demeanour of Sturgis and Catherine here remind me a lot of the pro-CAGW crowd. (In fairness, they do argue the science more which pro-CAGW never seemed to do)
What is it they say is the reality when a politician or scientist says ‘the debate is over’? Sturgis and Catherine would do well to remember Crichton’s apposite observation ‘I am certain there is too much certainty in this world’.
I largely accepted evolutionary theory to be true (at least from adaptations perspective) but now I am beginning to question that given how ‘certain’ some are that it is absolutely true. How completely and apparently easily the entire scientific community can be corrupted has me bothered also – this is, maybe, part of the fallout that can be expected when the CAGW imbroglio enters the public consciousness. Who will have confidence in science again?
Corruption. Community. Consensus… they are all distractions that have nothing to do with why evolution is a fact.
Evolution is a fact because the mountain of evidence proves it beyond doubt.
CAGW is NOT a fact because it is falsified by many kinds of evidence. See how that works?
So, gossip about sources and supporters, and their dislikeability, bank accounts or grooming habits. Congratulations, you are Naomi Oreskes.
Play word games about “faith.” It isn’t relevant or true or interesting.
By all means avoid the only thing that matters. (In case you’ve already forgotten: Evidence.)
There are worse ways to completely waste time, I guess.
Since evolution is science, of course its entire body of theory is not “settled”, but the theoretical aspects are to explain the fact of evolution, which is not any more in doubt than the fact that “germs” cause disease, that elements are made up of atoms, that gravity works on both apples and planets and that the earth goes around the sun, to refer to other well established scientific theories.
CAGW OTOH is so far from settled that it has been effectively falsified, in both the scientific and ordinary senses of the word.
Am I missing something here? I recently read about the Capistrano Swallows and how they have “evolved” shorter wing spans so that they could cope with the changes to their environment and could maneuver easier around the homes, automobiles, viaducts and bridges that are now in their breading areas. WHAT? It seems more likely it is forced selection. Those swallows that do not maneuver around the automobile DIE and do not have offspring (or do not feed the offspring they had). Those that do, have offspring and create more birds with shorter wings. These birds live longer, breed with other birds, some with short wings and some with long wings. However, those with short wings have a higher probability of living. That to me seems more like “survival of the fittest” not the common (miss)conception of evolving where genes decide to change so that the species can live, as is taught in many schools.
Sort of like what is happening now to humans. You do not need to learn math because you have a calculator, you do not need to learn how to spell because you have a spell-checker, you do not need to learn how to write because you can use your “device” (PC, tablet, phone, etc,) i.e. you do not need to use your brain and thus the IQ starts to drop. Don’t believe me? Look at the stats on the IQ of those graduating from college today compared to 20, 50, 75, and 100 years ago. How many years till the average communication device (cell-phone today) has more brains that the person holding it?
Both points are true and not mutually exclusive; but are not referencing the same thing. If the swallows have persistently shorter wingspans than a previous point-in-time norm that breeds true, then, they have evolved for that feature, at a present point-in-time, relative to the previous. Adaptation is evolution. The mechanism, more correctly, the selection pressure, that resulted in the population being selected for short wings with a concommitant breeding advantage (without which you have adaptation without evolution – phenotypic variation) is the mortality associated with close manouevering. Bird populations with short wings have an apparent selective advantage for reproduction over birds with longer wings. Individual birds don’t suddenly develop short wings (Lamarckian) – the local population does. Taxonomically, if the phenotypic variation breeds true (altered mean wingspan), you have the emergence of a sub-specific variant. If the phenotypic variation also leads to reproductive isolation (i.e. short wing birds won’t breed with long wing birds) then you have a case for speciation. Absence of cross fertility is not a requirement for speciation (but may be the stuff of argument). There are species that over large geographic ranges are infertile at the extremes of range, but contiguously fertile between (a “rassenkreis”)
This thread is highly unfortunate, as it shows how weak an understanding many posters here have of science, and the scientific method. CAGW is similar in its poor use of the scientific method and science. Evolution, Evolutionary Theory, etc., and all it implies, is so well proven that many of these comments border on ridiculous. In the scientific world, CAGW and Evolution (including humans evolving from a common ancestor with apes), are on opposite sides of a spectrum well done, well demonstrated science. This thread is fodder for WATTS enemies, and unfortunately, rightly so.
The scientific method is not to “prove” anything. By definition it can only disprove. There is no such thing as an experiment which definitively proves its thesis, it can only fail to disprove it. Any theory, no matter how well tested, is subject to room for doubt, and history is full of examples of widely accepted theories being eventually shown to be in error. Indeed good scientists are always skeptical, and challenge their own theories as a matter of good practice.
Ironic that you chastise others on their lack of the knowledge on the scientific method and at the same time you fail to see your own basic error. Your closed mind and acrimonious tone likely give more comfort to the AGW camp than anyone at whom you may wag your finger.
There is more than one scientific method.
One view in the philosophy of science is that science can only disprove. In that view, originating in Hume’s attack on inductive knowledge, and systematized in the twentieth century by Carl Popper, I suppose you could say it is true “by definition”. But there are many problems with Popperian falsificationism and support for traditional inductive verificationism is by no means dead. In practical terms, inductive generalizations may be proven by complete enumeration — examining every case, and may be relied on to very high degrees of probability — virtual certainty — in cases where experiments may be reliably controlled to isolate every causal factor with even the remotest possible effect. And of course if one wishes to define proof as perfect certainty, then proof of the facts vital to our survival is neither possible nor, fortunately, necessary.
However, demanding that those claiming knowledge specify what observation would falsify the claim remains a damn good test of the scientific seriousness of the claim.
You are using words that loosely fit into the category of “scientific vocabulary.” But they are not forming relevant or purposeful english sentences.
Philosophy, the very definition of unsolveable subjectivity and nauseating loghorrea, should keep its grubby, navel-gazing mitts off of Science, which at least aims for objective knowledge about our world. IMHO, of course. 🙂
***********************
Every Pope since JP2 has accepted the fact of Evolution. It is the official policy of the Catholic church that Evolution is a fact. Does that persuade any of the faithful in here?
A big, noisy herd of your people believe God and Evolution are compatible. Who the hell are you to disagree?
HTB is correct. Jake fails science 101.
I believe he was using “proven” in the colloquial sense. And he is absolutely correct that, in common parlance, evolution is as much a fact as gravity, heliocentrism, death and taxes. You are quibbling, not debating.
I agree.
It is shocking how many commenters on this blog spout such anti-scientific nonsense out of total ignorance.
Creationists are far worse than the Sky Dragon Slayers or whatever they call themselves, so should suffer the same treatment, IMO, ie banishment.
Yes. What Jake said. Yes.
Is michal mann goose stepping or is he lifting his leg to avoid stepping in facts?
“…the next generation of his climate model will address the influence of climate on human evolution—much like it’s now being used to examine the influence of humans on climate evolution”.
It looks like a little more art than science.
Now Josh, that for sure is art! (: