PhDP

It's not that simple, Intelligent Designers believe in evolution in their own twisted way and I'm pretty sure that the most prominent IDist would have answered "yes" to the question, even though they're engaged in quite a battle with the scientific community. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the other candidates were, like Bush, supporting the "teach the controversy" strategy. I really wonder how much time a major, supposedly credible party in the USA, can afford to waste so much time on abortions, gays, evolution and global warming.

Unlimited energy would increase our carrying capacity, but there's still density-dependent mortality and a limited amount of space in the universe. Anyway, education decreases fertility, so I'm not sure our carrying capacity will be such a problem for future generations.

It's true that many reforms are not made because the status quo favours incumbents, above all, politics is about winning elections. However I'm not sure it's the case with party funding. Trees grow tall because if they don't, other trees would grow taller and steal their light. But they would all benefits and the productivity of the forest would increase if they could all agree on growing a little shorter. Same thing goes with party funding, what matters is not how much you have, but how much you have relative to your opponents. In Quebec the contribution is limited to 3000$/individual. The implementation of the limit had no overall effect, wealthy political parties have still more money, it's just that less energy is devoted to fundraising and the governements do not live on the money of interest groups and corporations.

Corporations and other interest groups can harm democracy, but limiting contributions to a certain amount and allowing only individuals to contribute is a straightforward way to solve the problem, at least partially. Too much energy is spent on fundraising, and it the end, nobody really benefits from this.

Cats ? How ? The order Carnivora is pretty far from Primates. If what you say is true, this is a serious problem for evolutionists.

And what if gun ownership (legal) was encouraging criminals to get armed ? It could have an impact. It's why only serious studies on the relation between an increase in gun ownership and crimes can inform us on all the ramifications. It's quite revealing that the US be compared with countries with a much lower GPD/capita to look good. Why do you need to compare the right to own a weapon to freedom of speech ? Why can't you use this argument with other deadly weapons ? We already restrict the use of some weapons because they are too dangerous. I also think making this an issue of "Freedom" vs "Oppression" is just a rhetorical trick. Nobody likes to be against freedom and liberties, especially in the USA. Some liberties and rights are more essential than others, and the rights to live, is, IMO, far more important than your right to own a weapon. If I thought your liberty to own a weapon was not endangering the rights and liberties of others, I would support it.

I also tend to favour gun control, but it's not an easy task to get a reasonable discussion about gun control when the debate started with an event like this. We could discuss for years about hypothetical scenarios, what could happen if there was no weapons, what would happen if most people were armed, and this could be easily fuelled by tons of anecdotal evidence and statistics published by partisan organizations. However it all comes down to this; does an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in crimes. Probably.

This is, to a certain degree, true for all sciences. Chemistry can be seen as a specialized branch of physics and biology as a specialized branch of physics and chemistry. I see it as a pyramid starting from the most fundamental science (physics) to the sciences of highly complex systems (ecosystems). Because each new "step" in the pyramid implies new emergent properties, many features of the most fundamental sciences are often lost. It's certainly not necessary for a biologist to be a good chemist, or for a chemist to be a good physicist, but it does help, especially in theoretical studies. "Atheist" said you don't need chemistry to study ecosystems, it's true that the two domains don't overlap, there's such a huge difference in terms of scale and complexity that no serious scientist would think of using chemistry to understand the relationships between species. Still, the equation of the most elementary (read; fundamental) predator-prey model is based on a principle of chemistry (mass action). And this is a very important equation, every biology students have heard of the Lotka-Volterra model, even though most of them are not math enthusiasts like me. Many inspirations in theoretical biology originated from physics, chemistry or even economics. I bet the same thing could be said of all sciences. I think you can be a good scientist even if you're very specialized and don't know much about the other sciences, but having a good general knowledge of science can be quite handy. Most, if not all, of the prominent scientists of recent history working in my area were also very knowledgeable at least in one other scientific discipline.

Global Warming will indeed lead to more precipitation. However, we should be careful before trying to link any specific change to GW. Here, our winter was very hot (relatively speaking), but with much less precipitation than usual.

Phylogeneticists are using DNA, along with other morphological and sometime behavioral traits, to build phylogenetic trees.

I think the aversion of fascism by liberals is caused by a general emotional aversion of inequalities, it might even be the core of the left, if such thing exists. But this is such a complicated subject, so many studies were able to establish clear correlations and links between personality traits and politics, but what makes the core of each political ideologies is still not well understood. While it's well known that genetics and different worldviews are setting the left and the right apart, nobody really knows why there's such a strong link between different issues like abortion and redistribution of wealth. From what I know, I would tend to believe the left is mainly driven by an aversion to inequality, while conservatives are driven by their aversion of uncertainty. One interesting aspect of this subject is that, despite the complexity and diversity of human behaviours, we can still predict with a high degree of confidence how someone will vote with very few information about his personality and habits. I think the aversion of fascism by liberals is caused by a general emotional aversion of inequalities, it might even be the core of the left, if such thing exists. But this is such a complicated subject, so many studies were able to establish clear correlations and links between personality traits and politics, but what makes the core of each political ideologies is still not well understood. While it's well known that genetics and different worldviews are setting the left and the right apart, nobody really knows why there's such a strong link between different issues like abortion and redistribution of wealth. From what I know, I would tend to believe the left is mainly driven by an aversion to inequality, while conservatives are driven by their aversion of uncertainty. One interesting facets of political psychology is that, despite the complexity and diversity of human behaviours, we can still predict with a high degree of confidence how someone will vote with very few information about his personality and habits.

It will probably freak you out, when you don't understand what the symbols mean, even a simple differential equation can look challenging. If you can understand the basic concepts of calculus, math wiz or not, you're probably going to be ok in engineering. Then you're probably going to be ok, college and university-level mathematics look a lot more complicated than they really are. It's very important to be able to understand the concepts; you won't be able to pass simply with a good memory. More advanced mathematics generally requires less calculation as you're going to use computers programs so you can concentrate on translating your ideas into mathematics.

... but what makes someone "bad" ? The "evil" gene, bad parenting, or poverty ? If we forget for a minute about extreme cases of child abuses by parents, contrary to widespread believe, parents really don't shape their child's personality. They're much more affected by genes and by their contact with the outside world. Also, there's so much research that have been done on criminality and poverty, some of them showing a robust link between crimes and the Gini index (a measure of inequality), even after controlling for other factors. It's hard to believe someone would deny the link between crimes and poverty. And the ultimate question is, are bad people more likely to be poor, or is poverty simply a rich soil for developing criminal behaviours ?

The idea that having a job is a right is quite popular in France, and it's also a major economic problem. Firing someone in France requires herculean effort, if you have more than 50 employees and you're firing more than 10, you must propose a "social plan". And of course, when you're firing, you have to prove it's fair, but even if you do, the employee can sue, and they often win their case.

There's something dangerous with this kind of reasoning. Climate scientists are pretty clear that GW is probably caused by humans, and it's also pretty clear that many people will suffer from this, yet we're going to wait because of "economically damaging solutions" ? That's reasonable ? But if you read carefully what climate scientists are saying, they don't claim to be able to predict precisely how much our climate will change, but they're able to establish a trend and they're narrowing uncertainty.

Yep It's somehow surprising that they are still considered "good enough" to be taught at the university level.

A common mistake is to think that evolution is some sort of god, that it can eliminate EVERY single deleterious gene. It's not the case. Many genes that are causing genetic diseases are very rare, and as most of the time they are recessive, they don't reduce fitness "enough". Also we often find that a gene increases the likelihood of having a certain disease, but the gene can do a lot more so the benefits outweigh the risks, especially if the frequency of the gene is low in the population. I'm really not an expert of genetic diseases, but I've heard that the gene causing cystic fibrosis was providing a protection against typhoid. Sickle-cell disease is another well known example...

Nobody is saying otherwise, but it would also be extreme to say that all sides, in all cases, are equal in everything. That's political correctness.

lucaspa, I'm not going to debate with you about sexual selection or the definition of "important" in evolution. A quick search with google about Darwinism and sexual selection should have settled the issues, and the relative importance of each mechanism is a very complicated issue. If it was as simple as you make it sounds, it would be solved for quite some time (and BTW, you seem to think "neutral" mean "silent", which is not always the case). If you can read Molecular Evolution by Graur and Li, and the article I quoted from MBE, you could understand why it's so complicated.

Another thing now... I said I agreed on "most" of the things Lucaspa said, not "everything". I just said I didn't believed conservatism was shown by science to be flawed, so how can you say I agree with his position ? And I do agree with most of the things he said; global warming, survival of the fittest... About the rest... I believe "incompatible" was a correct word, again you're not arguing on the facts, you're only trying to set up a staw man, you perfectly know I never meant that a conservative could not be a scientist, I said this many times. You're contansly saying I have personal preferences, bias, prejudices, what's your point ? That I'm not a robot with 100% objectivity, great, but that doesn't make my argument false and that certainly doesn't justify the use of fallacious arguments. That's interesting. So you claimed I've retracted, and then you accept a "retraction" that you've invented ? And it was taken out of context, you implied I said ALL conservatives could not be scientists. I want an answer on something. You accused me of having said "conservatism = bad, liberalism = good". I've never done that. And you claimed I supported the view that conservatism was refuted by science, that's a lie. Again I'm asking, where ? You quoted me saying I thought conservatives were more hostile to science. I still think that's true (however, this has nothing to do with my argument about why scientists are leaning to the left). That's not the same thing as saying conservatism is bad or refuted, how on earth could take "conservatives are more hostile to science", and then say; That was my point. But you said that "Phil's ideological point (about conservatives) doesn't hold water on a logical/scientific level, and therefore has been thoroughly refuted". I think I've shown very well my initial argument, using a logical/scientific argument. And NO, my initial argument was not that conservatives are evil or idiots, only that some traits associated with conservatism are incompatible with science, nothing else. And NO, it doesn't mean ALL conservatives shares the same traits, or that a conservative will burst into flames if he tries to enter Harvard, a quick read of the few references I've given is enough to understand that.

Somebody have an idea of the average density (kg/cm³) of animals ? More specifically; aquatic mammals. I know it depends on many factors, and it's not the same value for all animals, but I'm looking for an educated guess.

That's a circular discussion... However I want to say a last thing about some of the things you said about evolution; Sorry, but get back at your textbooks Or just read wikipedia's article on "Natural Selection", sexual selection is really just a particular case of natural selection, that's EVO101. There's no consensus about genetic drift vs. selection in molecular evolutionary biology, except this; genetic drift is much more important than initially thought. I never said drift was leading to adaptations, but everything is not about adaptations. Again, you would have to read about what modern scientists are writting on the subject. I suggest "Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution", Molecular Biology and Evolution 2005, 22(12):2318-2342. So you're basically arguing with me about people you don't know about ? And YES, they are contesting the primacy of natural selection (not the primacy of natural selection when it comes to adaptation, however). But you would have to read what they have to say before saying they have a "stawman" version of neo-Darwinism, it's not the case.

Sorry about my impatience, but I hate to be misquoted. However, here I think you got it wrong. Darwin found only one mechanism of evolution; natural selection, sexual selection being only a specific case of natural selection, it's not a different mechanism. The inheritance of acquired traits wasn't discovered by Darwin. Also, "Darwinism" doesn't exclude those who think there are other mechanism, it's just used to emphasize "natural selection", and it's why it should be be considered synonymous with "evolutionary theory". When Vincent and Brown wrote "Darwinian Dynamics", their approach was based on Darwinism; natural selection, but I'm 100% certain that they acknowledge other mechanisms. However, they were writing a book about game theory and adaptation, and only natural selection was considered... Personally, I also dislike "neo-Darwinism", even if some scientists are still using it, I think we're really beyond this. One of the reason, I think, that Darwinism can be seen as a pejorative term when it's used to mean "evolution", and not just evolution by natural seleciton, is precicely that it implies that evolution IS natural selection. Darwin discovered natural selection, but not the other mechanisms of evolution, and while some mechanisms like drift were thought for some time to be unimportant, we now know how important they are (even though the relative importance of the other mechanisms is still a hot topic). Evolution is many things, mostly natural selection, drift and mutations, but it's not only selection, only drift, or only mutations. The definition you took from the NAS is fine.

This is getting very irritating, where did I said conservatism was flawed ? I talked about personality, conservatism and science, but I never attacked conservatism as a political philosophy, and I certainly don't think science proves conservatism to be flawed, I never even implied this. Really I don't know why you're saying I said "conservatives = bad, liberals = good", is it some sort of tactics becase you don't want to argue on the facts ? I've quoted articles from serious publications, and I've defended the idea that scientists are probably liberals because of their personality, that's all. And the only answers I got from you, and I find this very ironic as you were the one accusing me of having prejudices, were personal attacks and diverstions ("Blacks" IQ, PC...), this is fallacious and has no place in a civilized discussion.

You're really trying very hard to misunderstand, when I said that Darwinism meant "evolution by natural selection", you think that I was implying scientists don't use the word "Darwinism" ? It's just ridiculous.