Science and Society

Despite your warm reassurance in the first paragraph of today's blog, Ned, we still have a little less than nine months more of campaigning before election day. I'm sure we'll have plenty more political bombast to confront before that time, so please forgive me if I stay in my shelter a while longer.

I agree that a debate doesn't really seem to be the proper vehicle for the candidates to discuss "the scientific issues confronting society and of the policies he or she would implement in response to new scientific information." I would think that the format would lend itself more to sensational sound bites without giving the candidates enough time to state their positions and ideas for the future. But some discussion must take place, and if that discussion is in the form of a debate, so be it.

I think it's great! For too long science has taken a back-seat to some issues that the government shouldn't even be in. I think a constitutional Prez. with a scientific outlook on things, instead of a politically motivated sense of reality, could do wonders for the country, and for scientific understanding. Perhaps with a guy or gal like this, we could thwart some of those doom predictions.

I think putting science issues more front and center is a great idea, but I'm not sure a separate debate is the best way to do it. I would think it would just move all potential science questions off into one isolated debate that everyone will feel safe to ignore. Better to bring science issues into the main debates, but I don't know how you can force that to happen - nothing happens without the consent of the candidates anyway.

Science should not be debated by politicians.

Truth and politics are mutually exclusive concepts.

Not a bad idea, but PLEASE keep Al Gore out of it!

A debate would be a great idea. I would love to see Huckabee "explain" that the earth is 6000 years old. We need to realize, however, that a president who even knows what the periodic table IS would be an improvement over the dunce currently in the White House.

How can you squawk about Al Gore. At least he has brought this topic to the forefront. Only a year or so ago, most republicans were calling the whole concept of global warming a myth. At least now they are tossing around the idea that we may well have some influence over the environment. It's a start.

rmberryman,

I agree. Al Gore is primarily interested in profiting from the Green Movement.

I think bringing science policy into the debate would be fantastic. Although it couldn't be about scientific theory. It could demonstrate appreciation and understanding of scientific method, medical research, engineering, and mathematics as a consideration in leading the United States forward.

One of our greatest rivals in the world, China, is lead by a government of Engineers. The USA is lead by government of Lawyers.

I don't think a debate is either advisable or necessary. I think the most important thing is that the President acknowledges that there is science and that it's quantifiable. A Luddite in the White House will not and has not done this country any good at all. I don't understand how any person can use a computer or fly to some destination or use a phone and deny that science is here to stay. Such people need to be locked away someplace secure, because they present a danger to the future of this nation.

More information comparing what the candidates have said about science issues has been collected by AAAS and a blog by Physics Today

I sounds like a great idea. But you may find out they have no clue of the issues or the science behind them. Keep in mined. Politicians are not use to dazzling the public with there brilliance. They are use to baffling them with there bull-**** .

You should have them quizzed first to see how much they know about the science issues. Then let the Debate on it.

All I can think of is that song from Weird Al Yankovic “I lost on Jeoparody” when I think of them being quizzed. :)

The big question is can you get them there.

It would be interesting to see how much each of the candidates really knows about Science. The problem is that so much of Science is still being debated by scientists themselves. However, turning to the use of clean energy sources, I believe is an absolute must (do) with zero emissions. The only "emission" should be a small amount of heat and even that should be close to zero. It is the scientist's job of convincing the President and the public to act and the responsibility for what the President does lies on the public and public opinion to encourage the congress and the president to do the right things.

I forgot to use the word FREE. We should be using clean and FREE energy sources and the public needs to make this change happen. So not only should it be zero emissions, it should cost nothing too.

Evolutionary Psychologists will save the world. Read some Buss, Ridley, Pinker, Diamond. You'll be changed forever.

Andy -
I agree completely but not just to the nation but to all of humanity.

jock59801 -
thanks for the links.

No Evolutionist will ever save the world. That is blasphemy. Anyone that believes in Evolution does so because they do not want to believe that they will have to answer to God for what they do. Evolution is the cause of crime not the prevention of it. Our only "Savior" is God Himself who made us. If you want to talk Science, that is your Science right there. Things do not make themselves. They need a Creator, a Redeemer and a Savior. That is the kind of "Science" questions that we should be asking.

How do you explain our origin since it is impossible for us to pop into existence without an external perfect force and intelligent design?

People just don't have a clue when it comes down to real Science (with the exception of evangelicals like Huckabee).

I think this is a great idea. Thank goodness Hucklebee has no chance of being elected - he's the only one without a clue.

cturple, if you want to say something, you can't just say something without saying why you are saying it. You have to explain why you believe it to be so. It means nothing without a basis. Where is your ("scientific") basis for saying what you do? Show me how all life can pop into existence without design. You can't so what you say means nothing. It has as much substance as thin air without gas. If you want to talk Science, you need to start from "the beginning". You need to begin with the origin of life. You need to go from having nothing to having something without any external interference. You can’t do that so you can’t say anything... unless you agree there is a Creator.

Daleri, there was a creator for the human species. Two of them actually. And no, it wasn't Jesus. You see, it all started when two monkeys fell in love. They had this grand ceremony, where the High Priest of the Banana presided. Then, because they were animals, they consumated the union right there in front of all the other monkeys. A few months later, a child was born. Her name was Eve. She was one of the precursors to Humans. She mated with another monkey that looked similiar, and had more monkey babies that made more human like monkey babies. And over time, through the breeding of monkeys, humans came into existance a few hundred thousand years ago.

My science for this is the science of Palentology(sorry for the spelling) and evolutionary science. I'm sorry but Creationism and it's so-called "Intellegent Design" theories are full of holes. Matter of fact, the only reasonable evidence that I've ever come across is that ID people seem to scream "EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY!!!!" Which is the only credible argument you've got. Heck, even ID itself is JUST A THEORY. Dinosaurs never walked with people, they flew, but never walked. This is supported by the hundred or so years of palentology that has NEVER found a human bone in the same geologic strata as any dinosaur, minus birds, which are widely accepted as direct descendants of dinosaurs.

As for carbon dating, yes it has flaws, but so does your watch. We're human, far from perfect. And if you think God had something to do with creating us and all the creatures on the planet, He's not perfect either. There's plenty of animals that aren't here. That were wiped out because they either didn't do well, couldn't adapt, got blown up by volcanos and meteorite impact, etc. And if you take the bible literally, God cloned Eve from Adam. Don't know how he made her a female, unless he made Eve a male and gave him some strange reproductive organs that evolved into the females we know today. But that would be telling that God invented homosexuality, and of course, that's blasphemy as well, even though it is HIGHLY natural.

And just because you believe in evolution does not mean you don't believe in God or that we don't want to have to answer to Him. I believe in evolutionary science because there is plenty of evidence supporting it. I also have faith that God exists. I don't think that our current universe could have just popped into existance on it's own. It needed something. I just think God created this universe as some sort of reality T.V. show. And I'm sure He thinks our bickering is quite funny.

Now, lets try to play nice. This thread isn't here to discus evolution. It is here for us to discuss the value of having a Presidential Scientific Debate.

Daleri - The origin of life is not going from nothing to something; it is going from something to something a little different. All that takes is energy, natural selection, and a lot of time. We don't know exactly how the origin of life happened so we can't say too much about it, but we can say a lot about how life evolved after it began. And I think it is important that our leaders know a little bit about basic science.

I don't mind if our leaders think that some god or gods intervened in the course of evolution, but I do expect them to understand how science works and what it his shown us. How can they make decisions about science funding, environmental protection, medical ethics, or climate change if they aren't even aware of what we know about these things from scientific research?

There is no evidence that supports evolution and evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is a religion that Huckabee does not subscribe to.

Huckabee believes the historical documentation found in Scripture. It is NOT an idea. It is NOT a theory. It IS history. It is history that has been proven to be the most accurate history ever compiled. There is nothing wrong with believing the most accurate history book that has ever been published.

The miracles that Jesus did were to show that He is the Creator and to show that it doesn't take long for Him to make something from nothing. Jesus doesn't need millions of years.

Daleri -
whatever. I'm not interested in debating science with someone who bases their life on the supernatural, as you clearly have no understanding of reality, or even of what the word "proof" really means.

Daleri, there is history in the Bible. But there is also quite alot of false information as well. Take the story of Noah. Complete fabrication and rewrite from two stories that are much older. That and the complete lack of evidence supporting a global flood. There's been survey's of Mt. Ararat that have found nothing, not even in areas where it is believed the ark landed and survives to this day. Also, engineering studies have been done and a wooden ship of the size that is stated in the bible can't support itself and would collapse onto itself. Also, two of each animal loaded onto one ship the size it was, while keeping the carnivores from eating eachother and the herbavores is impossible. Plus it'd take at least 30 years to collect all the animals at today's current biomass.

There is no evidence supporting ID or Creationism, so it can't even be called a theory, more just an idea. There is evidence supporting evolution, so it can be called a theory. It's not fact yet, or a scientific law, because there is still evidence missing. ID requires faith, nothing more. Science is collectable, and supported by evidence that is visible, collectable and readily available.

There isn't any evidence that Jesus did what he did, other than the written text of men long dead. And besides, Jesus isn't the Creator like you said. He's the Son of the Creator. Now you're credibility is shot and no one can believe a word you say.

I will not believe ID or Creationism until there is a mountain of evidence supporting it, kind of like evolution. It is based on faith, and it's sole argument that has any credibility is that evolution is a theory.

Jock - exactly. It was all downhill after Jefferson as far as I'm concerned.

Daleri - You are just making our point for us. If the Presidential candidates are as completely unaware of the world of science as you are, then we certainly don't want them trying to lead us through the 21st century.

blasphemy?

Lawrence
Please don't call those upright bipedal tailless primates (moropithecus et.al.) monkeys, that's what started the whole anti-evolution problem in the first place.

Ned, now I understand the enigmatic smile in your photo at the top of the blog. You're considering the results of inviting some people to a party, who don't necessarily like or agree with each other, and introducing a controversial subject. You surely know how to stir a pot. :-))
That's why I like this blog over all the others.

Daleri
Things do not make themselves. How about crystaline structures.

Mike Huckabee: the candidate for Americans who are tired of George Bush's intellectualism

Andy
Me too. Some of the arguments are actually quite interesting, and I find myself reading up on a comment for more information (except for a few).

WDJ
You have got to be kidding us on both accounts. It was a joke, right?

galiano
They want to get elected.

Andy, wise words well-written! Now that I think of it, it seems that Ned's smile is similar to that of Voltaire on the famous bust by Houdon!

Quietman, I was being _very_ sarcastic.

WDJ
Thank God.

WDJ
ps me too, both times.

Oh, Quietman, that was great sarcasm there as well. That is what the ID and Creationists think, so I just spelled it our for them. But, if you think on it for a while, apes, which we came from, evolved from monkeys, so it's sort of true, just have to revise my couple hundred thousand year time frame.

And Andy, that was great. Oh, and sorry for jacking the thread like that. I kind of like shooting down arguments on occasion. :)

Lawrence
I don't have any argument on evolution. But it should be noted that according to the most recent data that I could find, the apes developed in parallel with monkeys from prosimians (Lemur like creatures). But if they ended up in our line I for one would not be offended.

Well, you won't find any evidence of Jesus' curing the sick and raising the dead because he didn't do it scientifically. He did it by miracles because He's the Son of God. There are too many writers and contributors to the Bible, and too many studies of it to call it the written text of men long dead. The scientific experiments and records of today, which are all wonderful and fascinating, will one day be nothing but texts to the generations in the distant future... that is if we don't turn ourselves into a race of freaks first by messing with cells, genes and embryos. I believe in creation and I don't deny that there has been an evolution process on this earth. However, I don't believe that human beings and old world primates are one and the same. There's a missing link. The connection is only a hypotheses. I do think it's possible that we are one day going to morph into something else if science is given free rein to do anything it wants to do. Even the Annals of Internal Medicine recognizes the necessity of heeding a code of ethics. Please read how rational men, doctors and scientists who worked for Hitler ethicized their experimental atrocities.

Well we aren't one in the same with apes anymore. We're different species. Do I believe we have a common ancestor? Yes, I do. I am quite open minded, and when I see overwhelming evidence that supports creationism over evolution, I'll switch. But untill then, evolution it is.

jnnttlc
Hitler ethicized their experimental atrocities under the name of God. His revival of the old norse mythology and the Nazi state religion were his reason to proclaim "God said so".

jnnttlc
On the issue of evolution:
You will never understand evolution if you are not willing to learn more about it. (please excuse me for this Lawrence)

The earliest prosimians found thus far were described by Lamar University Professor Jim Westgate and Dana Cope, a co-author of the study, associate professor of anthropology, (Charleston college, S. Carolina), found in south Texas. [Team: Texas study shows ancient primates - Mon Apr 2, 2007 - BEAUMONT, Texas]

The earliest upright ape was Moropethicus, most probable direct ancestor of the Australopithecenes. These "apes" were not monkeys (quadrupedal), nor Urangutans (branchiating), nor were they what you think of as an ape (semi-bipedal knuck walkers that can not walk upright due to the shape of their spine). You might call them ape-men. They were humanoid but not yet human. The links from Moropithecus right on up to Homo sapiens archaic are quite plain. Look it up and put "creation" away while you are reading, you may just learn something.

Yes, and that's outrageous to think such a thing. A sick mind. But his scientists were rational men. (or am I defeating my own argument with that oxymoron). The point is that there are lessons to be learned from the Nuremburg trials about ethics, if you read the link. Applying a code of ethics to scientific research, ethical justification being the cause of the controversy that exists today in the scientific debate.

OK, I'll read about it. I'll also try to find the missing link I mentioned. But you are adding to my point that they were humanoid, not primate. And I know that a monkey is not a primate. My lunch hour is over.

Lawrence
Just an FYI:

Mesopithecus:
[Greek paleontologists find rare prehistoric primate skull - Wed Jul 26, 2006 - ATHENS (AFP)]:
'Measuring 1.3 metres (4.27 feet) to the tip of its long tail'

[Researchers say monkey-like animal a little more than 3 feet long - KRIOPIGI, Greece, Jul. 26, 2006 (AP)]:
"It had a tail ... it was herbivorous, and the skull is intact as well as the teeth,”

Aegyptopithecus:
[May 14, 2007 - Human Ancestor had Lime-Size Brain - John Roach for National Geographic News]:
'challenges “perceived truths” that large brain size was required for things like daytime activity and living in large social groups.' (Egypt)

Pierolapithecus:
[Ape fossil bridges evolutionary gap
Scientist are abuzz, but discoverers shy away from ‘missing link’ label - By Diedtra Henderson - Nov 19, 2004 - AP]:
"The last probable common ancestor to humans and great apes had a body like an ape, fingers like a chimp and the upright posture of humans," (found near Barcelona, Spain).

Please note that the descriptions of the tailed ones are "monkey-like" but not called monkeys (which are more recent quadrupedal animals).

I meant a monkey is not a humanoid.

jnnttlc
That's what I thought you meant so I didn't point out the error.

I think the correct term is "hominid."

I'm not really sure why we are talking about monkeys, but I have always assumed that any confusion in the "monkey" terminology was due to the general public's assumption that ape, monkey, and primate are all pretty much interchangeable terms. A biologist knows that apes, monkeys, hominids, and their common ancestors are all different groups of primates. I'm not sure it really matters if the public gets the terminology right, as long as they get the idea of the common ancestor.

Wow, I didn't know of those. Thanks quietman. I think human evolution is hugely fascinating, as is all of natural history. But my main scientific study is of Astronomy, with Ichthyology a close second.

How did we get off the subject of science and the President? Possibly we were misdirected by the fella in the Oval Office. One is, though, tempted to draw a parallel... Well, perhaps I shouldn't go there.

Well Andy, it all started with one word: Evolution. It's like throwing brick footballs in a glass house. You're going to get some trouble. And that parallel, hahahaha!

The terminology is important because people argue over "evolution" because some evolutionists say we came from apes. If apes are not hominids, then we did not come from apes.

jnnttlc
hominid is the family taxon and humanoid is a description of our basic build. You can have a humanoid that isn't a hominid or a hominid that isn't a humanoid. Pongo, subfamily Ponginae, family Hominidae, superfamily Hominoidea, (urangutan) is a hominid.
Dale Russels fanciful reptiloid is a humanoid. (Features and functions of human rather than hominid lineage.) Moropithecus and later hominids are all humanoids, hence my use of the term. I did not intend confusion.

jock59801
you are right of course, and that is a large part of the problem with acceptance, which is why I dislike using the term monkey for any primate that isn't.

Andy
why not? sound like fun!

The credibility of scientists relies on the accuracy of their information, so the terminology needs to be correct.

jnnttlc
Precisely what I was trying to point out. But the reason that we say we come from apes is the suffix "pithecus". It literally translates to "ape" but when I say I saw an ape, you see in your mind's eye a gorilla or a chimpanzee. While the Urangutan, Gorilla and Chimpanzee are all classed as hominids, they are not our ancestors, but more like our cousins (our speaking as a human), with the chimp closest living relative, then the Gorilla and then the Urangutan in my examples.

Well then that's where God interfered in the family taxon, when he caused the evolution of humanoids. Kidding aside, I will read more on this.

cturple
thanks for the links, I have looked at the latter but was unaware of the former.

To Quietman and Lawrence,
Fun, yes, but I sure wouldn't want to get Ned into any trouble. And I can be quite vitriolic on politics and the evolution/creationism "discussion."

Andy:
Yup, I read some of your posts on other threads, hence the fun. At least I would stay out of trouble for a change.

jnnttlc, cturple and Lawrence:
There is an excellent article on the little known Moropithecus:
Why Do Humans Have Back Pains? - It's in the evolution of the human spine - By: Stefan Anitei, Science Editor -

'The uncannily human-looking backbone of a 21 million-year-old precursor of humans and apes gives the first clue. A major change in the vertebrae that allowed this pre-human to stand upright and carry things also made it easier to crush and strain the spongy discs between each vertebra," believes Dr. Aaron Filler of the Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, a medical doctor and anthropologist.'

If you find this interesting then I also suggest visiting Dr. Filler's website. Well done with illustrations.

Ned
This was a good one. How about one on the new theory behind the cause of El Nino?

Quiet, I've known about that for a while. I'm only 24 and have back and knee pain. But I don't think it's evolutionary. Thanks Army. Well Andy, I've seen some of your posts before too. And yes, we may get Ned into trouble. Maybe that's why he posted about Jack McWethy. To avoid the trouble.

Ever wonder how mankind survived this long, given the actions of teen-agers? I've come to the opinion that the teen is the true test of the evolutionary success of any species. Even though the teen gene is passed along, enough survive that the race survives. But sometimes, I do wonder...

Lawrence
Dr. Filler explains why we are prone to back pain, not where we got it. My back has been bum since the Tet offensive of 1968 but now, at least, I know why. :)

Haha. I here you Quiet. Thanks for what you and your buddies did.

Andy, I agree. I'm surprised that I even made it to my teen years, when I quieted down alot.

Quietman - I'm finding Morotopithecus, but not Moropithecus. Is that the one you're talking about?

Crystals don't make themselves, they are pre-structured to form the way they do by the same Creator who made everything and holds everything together. Even if "spontaneous life" does form, it is from a pre-existing structure that they form from which the Creator has already put in place.

Umm, Daleri, crystals do form themselves. Sure, their structure is determined by the atoms that make up the crystal, and the atoms structure is determined by the makup of sub-atomic partcles, and their respecctive charges. I have no clue where you are getting youre information, but you should pick up a science textbook and read it. And the information in the book isn't false and isn't a religion. It's science, based on proven facts, that have been tested, retested, and tested a few more times, ending in the same way. Yes it will discuss theories, but not all of it is theoretical. Or, you can go on believing that an all powerfull being has time to micro manage every single facet of this planet, and the rest of the universe simultaneously. Because if he was, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

cturple

Moropithecus is a less studied fossil that has only recently gained attention.

If they delete the link again, just google "Aaron Filler" or "upright ape" and that should get you hits. But Morotopithecus appears to be the same animal from what I have seen. I don't know which spelling is correct so I have been using the first one that I read about.

Lawrence
Also if the corn chips disagree you can always eat them.

Daleri
Just as random crystaline structures can form, they can also be guided to form into patterns. This is where solid state electronics originated. The difference is that the random formations are always different from each other and never perfect, and have been known to form an imperfect double helix. DNA is a crystaline type structure.

Quietman -okay, thanks. i found his book. Morotopithecus is the correct spelling.
That's really amazing that bipedalism is that old - wow!

cturple
In the meantime I got an answer from Dr, Filler:

The spelling is Morotopithecus. Anything that says Moropithecus is a
typo. - Aaron Filler

Apparently his publisher left out 2 letters (the first edition has a few typos but that one apparently went uncaught) and the article at softmedia used the same spelling like I did.

What amazes me even more is that it came before the Gorilla or the Chimp split. Which starts me wondering about the reliability of evo devo.

I'm reading some of these things but I'd like the name and author of a good, readable book on evolution so I don't have to keep switching between web sites. Keep the faith Daleri.

Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, is a good one. It's the one that started it all in the first place. There are countless others. Google search it.

Lawrence.... that's so dated. It's the text of a man long dead. Please give me something more recent. When I went to school evolution was not a big issue. I've followed it somewhat but would like a more recent title. If it's too much trouble I'll go to Amazon.

Well to be honest, thats the only one I know of. I get most of my info from the internet and such.

OK, thanks. I'll search Amazon.

No problem. I'm always happy to help in anyway I can.

jnnttlc: A single book just isn't going to give you the information you need. New discoveries are made every day.

jnnttlc
Darwin's Origin of species gives the most understandable explanations but it IS old, and has outdated information.
I suggest reading Dr. Fillers' Upright Ape. It is the latest hypothesis on evolutions mechanisms and you can preview most of it on his website. It also contains a lot of history, past views on evolution, and so on. cturple has a good point in that one book won't be enough but if you're only buying one, it's the one what I would recommend.

jnnttlc
If you do want to read Darwin, his works are available online for free.
I downloaded the plain text editions from Project Guttenberg so I could search them for quick reference. But keep in mind that they do have some errors in dating, and "Origin of Species" does not deal with human evolution. His "Descent of Man" was interesting but a hypothesis that is no longer accepted.

So is our DNA random or is it ordered?

The only thing random about it is the toss of the dice when child is conceived. Other than that every human DNA produces another human by design.

well, I had listed a couple of links to sites that cover human evolution in depth, but they were removed. You might try picking up a used biological anthropology textbook.

and this one looks interesting, although I've never read it so I can't personally vouch for it. Coming from the Smithsonian, it should be well done.

"Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins"

There's also Robert Ardrey's "African Genesis," and "Territorial Imperative."

An observation:

Why is it that a discussion about the knowledge that our Presidential candidates have of science, the philosophy of science and the scientific method degenerates into a discussion about evolution with religious overtones?

Sorry for the long and unwieldy sentence!

I know of no reason why we should expect any politician to know anything of science unless they were trained that way before entering politics. It would probably be better for the nation if we had a better professional balance in the Congress - less lawyers more engineers, scientists and other professions etc.