Ringer

I could just as easily make a blanket statement saying that since scientists are more likely to be democrats you only post things that democrats are interested in.

I get what you are trying to say and it's true, but I disagree from an evolutionary level. To say that we would lose to any apex predator is true so long as we are not in a group or able to use what we have built is true, but it is a useless comparison. It would be like me saying I could kill a lion with a knife so long as it doesn't have teeth or claws. To remove all the assets built on by evolution for one creature and not the other is, in my opinion at least, redundant. Something could kill us as long as we don't have the things that give us the ability to kill it first.

They very much are, but I assume from what was said it was meant without regard to interspecies predation. The link just talks about being higher up in the food web. Just because something is a predator does not mean it does well in other areas of fitness. On many levels of fitness smaller organisms tend to score much better, but on some larger organisms do better. In the end there are many ways to fill ecological niches, sometimes it's worth it to be being bigger and sometimes being larger is detrimental. To say one is better than the other doesn't really make sense in an evolutionary sense, though I do tend to side with single celled organisms.

. . . What tirades? Show an example where someone has said that this is not done. Apparently you are, no one else I noticed was. But I start talking about this because if we are talking about two different things the discussion goes nowhere. Yes new ideas are considered, if not science would be at a standstill. Not to mention all this money spent on education would be wasted on my part. This is exactly why it is a straw-man. You added something to his argument to make him seem wrong. He didn't even add the wrong ideas part. The OP asked about ALL ideas. Since WRONG ideas are a subset of ALL ideas saying that the wrong ones are not accepted in no way changed the discussion. You changed the premise by going from the OPs statement of all ideas to using a subset of all ideas. It's a straw-man. I give the OP enough credit to tell the difference between all ideas and correct ideas. It wasn't because right/wrong wasn't specified only new. If right/wrong was specified it would be different, it seems you are the only one who assumed to know the OP meant something different than what he/she said. And thus the other straw-man comes out. Again, no one said anything about even looking at new ideas as a whole. You added that as well. No you brought about both correct ideas and reading instead of accepting. No it's not. If everyone took the time to look at every single idea everyone comes up with nothing would get done. That's why there are ways to properly test/contact someone to test an idea. They will be perused, but they will cannot be expected be perused by anyone the person with the idea wants tell. How so? Well I hear that scientists do like flipping coins. All that matters is evidence at explaining phenomena and making more accurate predictions. If a new theory comes out that answers all the old question better than the old model or answers all those questions and more it will be adopted. It's always wrong to a degree, but it's less wrong than the other ideas. Because what you think the prevailing thought is is incorrect. You shouldn't expect an answer to a loaded question. So the opinions on my side make my posts less truthful than other posts? In what way am I not being truthful? No it's not. Prejudice is judging based on personal characteristics, it doesn't involve ideas. Knowledge of the fact most ideas are wrong is not prejudice so the false equivalence stands. Again, who said new ideas are not looked at? Give me some examples of when this happens. Nor did he say anything about accepting ideas with evidence. Give an example of when we have said we shouldn't accept ideas that have evidence OR we shouldn't even look at new ideas. In general reluctance enhances science because it causes one to constantly refine an idea. I assume you mean reluctance to even look at ideas, in which case I agree. Good thing that doesn't really happen. And eager acceptance is the answer of the ignorant. Some is a subset of all. Pretty self explanatory. Do you even read what is said before making assumptions about what is meant. I said I'm skipping it because it didn't relate to the discussion, being about ethics and such, not that I didn't understand it. Meaning I read it and it didn't add anything to the discussion. We're not talking morality, society, etc. Actually skipping things would logically take use further. If I had to go from point A to point C I could get there faster by skipping B. See I can twist an argument to make it mean whatever I want to. It's getting repetitive but I say again, example? At what point did I say ask and not answer? I'm pretty sure I was talking about answering questions considering I used those words. You should really start trying to understand what someone is saying instead of reading a response and assuming there are underlying meanings. Anecdote =/= evidence. I have looked at your thread of your idea and it seemed to go the route of my first example I gave to proximity. _________________

Why would we not evolve anything, and yet evolve so to remove something? Anyway there are a lot of difficulties with cloning at the moment. One is that if you clone an adult the DNA of that adult still has all the wear and tear from that persons life. This can, and usually does, cause the clone to have extremely early onset of many diseases and things associated with old age.

Besides being extremely adaptationist it doesn't really follow from the fact that we have found homosexuality to be extremely widespread.

Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/1439192812 And this evolution book http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-How-Living-Things-Came/dp/1554534305/ref=pd_sim_b_6 [edit] Add second link

Usually the response is along the lines of what has been done to test this idea, this idea is fundamentally flawed due to this, what tests support/falsify this idea, what predictions does this idea make. I don't think it's there is a necessary flaw in the way scientists, or this forum, handles ideas brought forth. I think the main flaw is that people seem to either want to verify their ideas as scientific without using scientific methodology or do not understand what is necessary for scientific ideas. So far as I can see most people on this forum try to explain what the flaws in ideas are and why they are flaws without being aggressive in any manner, most of the time at least. IMO it's not a problem with scientists necessarily, it's a problem with the general understanding of what science is.

Well there are plenty of resources online to look into these sorts of things. Here are a couple of places you could start. http://www.academicearth.org/subjects/computerscience http://video.mit.edu/channel/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/ Keep in mind if you plan on doing any sort of science because you don't want to be in an environment were you work long hours while not making a lot of money you may want to rethink your idea. Not that you couldn't make a lot of money doing these sorts of things, but usually money isn't great for most science jobs, though I'm not sure about CS, and the hours can get pretty terrible. Also, if you aren't really interested in these sorts of things the tedium can get pretty overwhelming. I did computer networking and programming/security for a few years because I thought there would be more money in it. I found that being interested in the subject is much more important than the amount of money you may or may not make.

Which is blatantly not what a Romney/Ryan election would seek to accomplish.

I didn't make a generalization, I was merely saying you could be unnecessarily obtuse by reducing all variation to an original mutation of some sort. My statement was referring to things such as sexual selection of a trait which could select for a combination of alleles increasing fitness without the need for mutation. It would also include things immigration/emigration, epigenetics, hybridizations, etc. Like I said before you could make the argument that all these things had to start with a mutation of some sort, but then the conversation then just becomes useless. In the end I was answering a question to a satisfactory degree, so what was the point you were trying to make? It seems like you were not trying to answer the question or add on to what I was saying. Nor does it seem like you were correcting anything I had said that you found to be factually inaccurate.

It doesn't matter what you believe, not all things that are sorted by natural selection originate by random mutation. Unless, of course, you want to be unnecessarily obtuse.

Exactly. There is no knowledge in place, it is a regulated biological function. Mutations and things can cause changes to those functions which may result in new phenotypes. No. There are a lot of ways adaptations can happen, I've just stayed with mutations because it's what all the cool kids are doing (actually because it's usually the easiest to explain). I'm not going to get into all the ways genetic modifications can take place because it would just confuse the issue without having background knowledge of heredity, meiosis, genetics, etc. Mutation is the easiest example of how phenotypic traits may become variable but is not the sole driving force of evolution. Natural selection has acts on those phenotypic variations and also has quite a few driving forces (e.g. sexual selection, intra/interspecies competition, etc.). The only thing that is really sorted out is which individuals with what phenotypic traits mate and produce offspring which is anything but random.

None of that explains why you think another right wing government will do anything better.

No more than you know where to develop your arm. Look up the experiments on Lamarckian inheritance and it will show that this does not happen. It was a prevailing theory before natural selection took hold, if only because there wasn't really any other. There are some ways environmental pressures and acclimation can be passed on (epigenetics), but it has more to do with genetic switches and can get pretty damn confusing.

Also: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

In addition to what iNow has said, remember that just because something functions in the way it does now doesn't mean it has always functioned that way. As an example think feathers (I'm going to speak of evolution as a thing because it makes it easier for communication, it is not an actual physical entity). Evolution probably wouldn't use something that would necessitate such a large jump and so many different mutations for a singular purpose like flight. So why would something need feathers without a keeled sternum, aerated bones, etc.? Well feathers also work well as an insulator, much like hair on mammals (possibly why birds and mammals are two of the only endothermic organisms). Though they were originally used as insulating material many predators with feathers could jump and attack prey from above or jump on top of large prey to kill it easier. On the flip side prey could now climb and/or jump from higher elevation and escape predators much easier than those without feathers. Since these feathered animals survived better using feathers in a way that was just a side effect those that were born to use then in more extreme ways also tended to survive and reproduce more. Keep building on that and you get birds that use feathers for what we think of them for, flight.

I think it's humorous you use Feynman. If you read his works you will notice that the reluctance we show is exactly what he promoted constantly. Look at his lectures on cargo cult sciences and you should see what I mean. He was also very disappointed that so many studies have not been strictly replicated to show their applicability. He also understood the bias people have towards their own ideas and, therefore, the necessity of having them torn apart by impartial individuals. He was an outside the box thinker, and came up with some amazing things. An example on what it would look like if Feynman came here and your average speculations conversation. Let's do the usual speculations one first. Avg. Speculator (AS) - My idea will revolutionize physics and brings understanding of every part of physics (insert idea and perhaps graphs) Forum (F) - Your ideas don't seem to explain much of anything or are in disagreement with known experiments. AS - No you don't understand what my 'theory' is saying (insert a retelling of the 1st post). F - It is still in disagreement and you don't have any math in your post. You can't have a proper prediction or theory without math supporting it. AS - My theory doesn't need math, it just makes sense. And this goes on for pages without making any progress. Now let's see how this would have went with Feynman and, say, his famous Feynman Diagrams (assuming this is a new idea). RF - I have a new idea on how to explain the interactions and behavior of subatomic particles. These diagrams seem to agree with the findings of (insert cited papers). F - Well the diagrams seem to show the behavior of the particles but there is no math behind the pictures, without that it is just a pretty picture. RF - The diagrams don't actually replace the math behind QM, but they can be used as a simplified representation of what occurs at the subatomic level. The math is necessary, but these diagrams can be used as a short hand, simplified version. And this goes on with the idea being explained and expanded.

Although we are drifting off topic as someone who's been in the same situation I may have a couple relevant things for you to remember. The crap you go through and get used to living that lifestyle will be a huge difference in what you may experience truly trying to get a good education. It may make you uncomfortable, I know I was, but don't ever let that make you think the old way was better just because you are more comfortable with it. Never let what you have done or haven't done define you, make yourself what you want to be not what you were. Don't get discouraged because people that may be less intelligent know more because they have had more schooling, you can always learn. Most of all stay mindful of your goals. Any way, that's my self-help paragraph of the day.

The majority of the religions I know of have no qualms with inbreeding being a major part of them.

Alleles change in individuals happens quite often, mutations occur fairly often. It is part of the evolutionary process, but that variation changes the frequency of the population. Since an individual's trait is more or less boolean, i.e. it either has the trait or doesn't, it doesn't have a frequency. There may be mutations within that individual's cells throughout its life, but the odds that they would actually add up to a phenotypic change are virtually nil. You're second question is missing a very important part of the definition. It is missing frequency. If an individual has a novel trait and it isn't passed on to further generations evolution didn't occur (for that trait). So for a period there was a change in allele, but the overall frequency of the allele stayed the same no evolution can be said to occur.

Again, he never said anything about being reluctant to read or address the ideas. Note also that by saying that was the one truthful confession it can be inferred are believe the rest of of are trying to be deceitful in some way. Creating a false equivalence between reluctance to accept new ideas and prejudice is not a great way to begin a logical argument. Then you accept that we shouldn't begin to accept ideas without evidence? It was a straw-man, you saying it is not doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy. So let me see if I'm following you here. You say you are going to show me why my assumption is incorrect by 1.) adding non before scientific to try to make it seem like I'm incorrect without having to actually argue your case 2.) using the same straw-man about not even reading new ideas. Man you sure showed me. . . So you are saying some ideas shouldn't be considered within science? Come on, slippery-slope fallacy already? I'm going to go ahead and skip this part because I don't see what it has to do with the discussion at hand. There isn't a reluctance to look at them, and if there was those pages of responses in the speculations forums must be about nothing. If that were true a large number of us should be banned for constantly derailing threads. I see it as a person trying to answer questions he or she doesn't understand or is already answered. If I wrote a book about how everyone's ideas about Shakespeare's writings were wrong and I am the only one who sees what they really are even though I have never read any Shakespeare other than cliff notes I would be a laughing stock.

We're always learning new things, that's what science is all about and why it is so interesting. From cellular/molecular biology, genetics, etc. all the way up to ecology we never have it all right and there are always things that are being discovered. Never get down thinking that all the answers are already there. There are a lot of answers out there but inevitably those answers tend to bring about new questions. As a side note, Darwin didn't coin biological evolution. The idea had been around for a while, even toyed with by some ancients who disagreed with the immutability of organisms, but one of the first fully formed proposals was Lamarck's IIRC.

I think I see what you're saying, but my previous statement still stands. If you use the usual biological definition of evolution, change in allele frequency in a population over time, it doesn't make sense because there are no heritable traits in inanimate objects. Also, in a biological sense, individuals don't evolve. So if I were to say a rock evolved it wouldn't make sense in that definition because no there was no allele frequency change and it happened to an individual and not a population. If you were to change the definition to simply 'change over time' the idea could easily be seen as very similar to evolution. Things are always changing, so in any system you observe, you can have something analogous to evolution.

If you use a non-biological definition of evolution then yes, just about everything in the universe could be thought to evolve. If you use the biological definition the question doesn't really make sense.