Evidence of Human Common Ancestry

[lucaspa]

No, you're not. That would mean those who believe in a benevolent creator god who became flesh in Jesus, died for humanity's sins, rose from the dead, and will grant eternal life to any who accept him. That is, in fact, what it says in the Bible, as well, so even a fundamentalist is still a "Christian" by that definition. What you've done is add a clause that they must accept scientific consensus, making the statement "Christians embraced evolution" merely tautological.

 

Sisyphus, I am not adding anything. I am merely stating what Fundamentalism adds, in the words of Fundamentalists.

 

What you are saying is that acceptance of the core statements in the creeds-- God created, Jesus as God, resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting -- makes one a Christian no matter what else they believe.

 

This does not follow and historically is not true. For instance, Mormons believe all that but are not part of Christianity. The same applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason, of course, is that both have added to Christianity. Both add revelation not accepted as valid by Christianity. JWs, of course, are also Fundamentalists.

 

The Apostles and Nicene Creeds say nothing about a literal inerrant Bible or how God created. They merely state that God created.

 

Fundamentalism has several statements -- the Five Fundamentals -- found in the series of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals (published between 1900 and 1910). http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm

 

The key belief in Fundamentalism is the inerrancy of scripture (the Bible). Francis Bacon saw the inevitable result of doing that: a heretical religion (and thus no longer Christianity):

 

"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

 

Eventually, this insistence on inerrancy ended up in denial of the Creator becoming Jesus -- one of the essentials you mentioned for Christianity came to the surface at the 1982 Arkansas trial over teaching YEC:

 

"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."

It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.

The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.

 

So, we have a new religion -- Fundamentalism. It calls itself "Christian" but

 

1. It has beliefs not included withing Christianity.

2. It denies essential beliefs held by Christianity.

 

Satisfying both of these criteria means that Fundamentalism is not Christianity, despite the attempt to use the name and some of the beliefs.

[lucaspa]

Good thing lucaspa knows a true Scottsman when he sees one.

 

Yourdad, this is the science forums. It's not enough to try to make fun of me. What you must do is show where my analysis is wrong.

 

Remember my thesis: simply naming yourself as "Christian" is not sufficient to qualify. Just as naming yourself "cosmologist", "surgeon", or "quaterback" does not make you one. People can deceptively name themselves something. In WWII in Norway, Quisling and his colleagues called themselves "patriots" and said they were acting for Norway. They weren't either.

[lucaspa]

Sisyphus, do you have a problem with this statement of mine: "Nearly all the different versions of theology have no problem with evolution and many embrace it."

 

Do you think that theism rejects evolution or would you like theism to reject evolution?

[ydoaPs]

Yourdad, this is the science forums. It's not enough to try to make fun of me. What you must do is show where my analysis is wrong.

I actually did both. I'm talented like that.

[Sisyphus]

Sisyphus, do you have a problem with this statement of mine: "Nearly all the different versions of theology have no problem with evolution and many embrace it."

 

Everything except "nearly all."

 

Do you think that theism rejects evolution or would you like theism to reject evolution?

 

Neither.

[Sisyphus]

Sisyphus, I am not adding anything. I am merely stating what Fundamentalism adds, in the words of Fundamentalists.

 

What you are saying is that acceptance of the core statements in the creeds-- God created, Jesus as God, resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting -- makes one a Christian no matter what else they believe.

 

No, not me. You: "I am using the definition of Christian found in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds." Although honestly, that seems like a pretty good definition as far as I'm concerned. (Or at least, better than one that requires that you have to believe in evolution in order to be Christian!)

 

This does not follow and historically is not true. For instance, Mormons believe all that but are not part of Christianity. The same applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason, of course, is that both have added to Christianity. Both add revelation not accepted as valid by Christianity. JWs, of course, are also Fundamentalists.

 

They're not Christians? Certainly THEY would disagree. Again, just look at the creeds. And look at the fact that everyone but the vaguest of "Christians" have more beliefs beyond that. Are Catholics non-Christian, too? You're being silly.

 

The Apostles and Nicene Creeds say nothing about a literal inerrant Bible or how God created. They merely state that God created.

 

Yup. And believing the Bible satisfies the creeds.

 

2. It denies essential beliefs held by Christianity.

 

What beliefs?

[lucaspa]

I actually did both. I'm talented like that.

 

Please expand. Walk us thru the details of how my analysis is wrong.

 

So far the only talents I've seen you display is for obfuscation and ducking issues.

[lucaspa]

They're not Christians? Certainly THEY would disagree.

 

Actually, no. Neither views itself as part of the Christian community. In fact, both feel rejected by that community (and they are). They both insist that their beliefs are correct -- particularly JWs.

 

And believing the Bible satisfies the creeds.

 

Not entirely. For instance, part of the creeds is Trinity. JWs reject Trinity. Trinity is implied in the NT, but never stated explicitly. Gnosticism does not qualify either. The creeds were constructed so that God the Creator is also God the Forgiver. Gnosticism separated those functions.

 

Now, if you had read Bruce Vawter's essay closely, you would see that our friends the Fundamentalists -- in defending creationism -- also separate God the Creator from God as Jesus.

 

Believing a literal and inerrant Bible ends up contradicting the creeds. Remember what I said about a core belief of Fundamentalism, Sysiphus. It's not just "belief in the Bible", but Fundamentalism has the belief that the Bible is both literal and inerrant. See below for 2 more examples where this additional belief comes into conflict with basic creedal beliefs of Christianity.

 

What beliefs?

 

I've been telling you that. Go up and read the post again. Let me add a new one: Fundamentalists often refer to the Bible as "God's Word". If you look in the Bible, you will see only ONE place where "word" is capitalized like that. That's John 1 where the Word is Jesus. So, by saying the Bible is God's Word, Fundamentalists are denying the basic Christian belief that Jesus is the Word. Christianity is about a man. Fundamentalism is about a book.

 

Another one. Listen to Fundamentalists carefully and you will hear them say "the only way to know about God is the Bible". This, of course, contradicts the basic Christian belief of a risen Jesus and a relationship with God and Jesus thru the Holy Ghost. So, in this statement Fundamentalists are denying the creedal assertion of the Holy Ghost and the continuing personal relationship with God.

[lucaspa]

(Or at least, better than one that requires that you have to believe in evolution in order to be Christian!)

 

Where did I state that?

 

However, Christians realized from the beginning of Christianity that God has two books. Not just one. Follow the logic: God created the universe. Therefore, everything IN the universe was put there directly or indirectly by God. Thus, the physical universe -- Creation -- is just as much (actually more) a book by God than the Bible. So, what does science study? The physical universe, right? Therefore, by the logic of Christianity, science is also studying God. And science, of course, includes evolution.

 

In the period 1790-1831 science was showing that a literal reading of Genesis 6-8 was wrong, and also that Bishop Ussher's date for the age of the earth was wrong. IOW, Christians faced a condition where the two books of God disagreed. But, did the two books REALLY disagree? Christians realized that they were dealing with an interpretation of the Bible in both a world-wide Flood and Ussher's chronology. So Christianity, by internal logic, concluded:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

 

So, everything is going along well until about 1890. During the second half of the 19th century Higher Criticism became the norm in Biblical studies. However, a small group considered that Higher Criticism was undermining the "authority" of the Bible. Thus we get Fundamentalism founded between 1900-1910, with its core belief in a literal and inerrant Bible. Like Mormons, Christian Scientists, and JWs, Fundamentalism is a break-away movement from Christianity. Now we get a denial that God has two books. Fundamentalism accepts only one book -- a literal and inerrant Bible -- and denies anything that contradicts that. In essence, Fundamentalism places the interpretation of the Bible above everything else; the interpretation is right and everything else is wrong.

 

By the internal logic of Christianity, Fundamentalism denies God.

 

So, rather than saying "you have to believe in evolution in order to be Christian", I am saying that accepting evolution as the method God created is a result of being Christian.

[ydoaPs]

Please expand. Walk us thru the details of how my analysis is wrong.

 

So far the only talents I've seen you display is for obfuscation and ducking issues.

 

Your post to which I replied was a True Scottsman fallacy. You set up an arbitrary condition for one to be a Christian which cuts out a large amount of Christians. The only "true" Christians, in your post, are the ones which believe in evolution. IIRC, that condition is not in the bible.

[lucaspa]

Your post to which I replied was a True Scottsman fallacy. You set up an arbitrary condition for one to be a Christian which cuts out a large amount of Christians. The only "true" Christians, in your post, are the ones which believe in evolution. IIRC, that condition is not in the bible.

 

Thank you for the walkthru. Now we can clearly see the errors in your reasoning and logic. You made a strawman. I never did what you claimed. I stated that Christians accepted evolution. I also stated "If you are going to claim to deal with reality, then you must deal with the reality that Fundamentalism is not Christian and is certainly not all of "theology". "

 

I never stated that Fundamentalism was outside Christianity because of its rejection of evolution. You read the "fallacy" into it; thus the "fallacy" exists solely in your imagination.

 

Fundamentalism is outside Christianity for reasons independent of its rejection of evolution. See my posts to Sisyphus. Basically, Fundamentalism is outside of Christianity because it violates the First Commandment.

[ydoaPs]

Thank you for the walkthru. Now we can clearly see the errors in your reasoning and logic. You made a strawman. I never did what you claimed.

Really? Let's look at the next line of your post.

 

I stated that Christians accepted evolution. I also stated "If you are going to claim to deal with reality, then you must deal with the reality that Fundamentalism is not Christian and is certainly not all of "theology". "

Gosh, it looks like that is EXACTLY what I claimed you said!

 

I never stated that Fundamentalism was outside Christianity because of its rejection of evolution. You read the "fallacy" into it; thus the "fallacy" exists solely in your imagination.

Let's see. I'll requote this post.

 

I also stated "If you are going to claim to deal with reality, then you must deal with the reality that Fundamentalism is not Christian and is certainly not all of "theology". "

In case you missed it, this is you stating fundamentalists aren't Christians.

I stated that Christians accepted evolution.

And here is you saying Christians accept evolution. Let's see, fundamentalists don't accept evolution, ergo, you say they aren't Christian. It seems like a pretty standard True Scottsman Fallacy from here.

 

 

Fundamentalism is outside Christianity for reasons independent of its rejection of evolution.

Then why bring it up in a discussion about Evolution? You were talking about Christians and how they accept evolution. You did not say "some"; you said Christians, which implies "all Christians". When called on it, you spout some bollocks about your definitionof Christian being based on the Nicene Creed implying some connection to the acceptance of evolution and NOT explaining how fundamentalists do not apply to these standards.

 

See my posts to Sisyphus. Basically, Fundamentalism is outside of Christianity because it violates the First Commandment.

By that reasoning, everyone who does not kill their children for talking back is not a Christian.

[Sayonara]

This thread has lost its way somewhat.

[hypertilly]

I believe everything animal has a soul but different intelligences to understand their soul. So a dog has a soul but won't understand it but intelligent creatures such as other Great Apes and probably delfines understand to an extent, if not as much as Humans what it means "to be" and have a concept of self.

 

How do you know that a dog doesn't have the intelligence to understand its own soul? You and I are not dogs.

[lucaspa]

In case you missed it, this is you stating fundamentalists aren't Christians.

And here is you saying Christians accept evolution. Let's see, fundamentalists don't accept evolution, ergo, you say they aren't Christian. It seems like a pretty standard True Scottsman Fallacy from here.

 

I know it "seems" that way to you, but you are still mistaken. Remember, in the original post, those 2 statements are not together. They are separated by several paragraphs. Go back and look. There is no "because" or "ergo" linking them. It is a fallacy to insert the "because" or "ergo". As I stated, the conclusion that Fundamentalism is not Christianity is independent of the stance on evolution.

 

So, I have two separate claims:

1. Christians accepted evolution.

2. Fundamentalism is not Christianity.

 

you spout some bollocks about your definitionof Christian being based on the Nicene Creed implying some connection to the acceptance of evolution and NOT explaining how fundamentalists do not apply to these standards.

 

I did explain how Fundamentalism contradicts the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. Look at my replies to Sisyphus. Basically, the Nicean and Apostle's Creeds are about God and Jesus. Fundamentalism is about a collection of books.

 

Also, I never said the Nicean or Apostle's Creeds implied acceptance of evolution. I merely said that they state "God created" without specifying how God created. Fundamentalism specifies a literal and inerrant Bible.

 

Then why bring it up in a discussion about Evolution? You were talking about Christians and how they accept evolution. You did not say "some"; you said Christians, which implies "all Christians".

 

The reason it came up in a discussion about evolution is because Socrates claimed that we were witnessing a conflict of science vs theology. In Socrates' view, Fundamentalism was standing for all of theology or all of theism. In order to state the correct conflict, it was necessary to point out that the opposition to evolution is coming from a particular religion -- Fundamentalism -- and not all of theism.

 

And yes, for reasons I have gone into, Fundamentalism is not Christianity. It is a new, separate religion that calls itself Christianity but isn't. Now, the wolf in sheep's clothing that is Fundamentalism is a problem Christianity has to deal with. It's not science.

 

However, the reality is important to science in terms of politics and sociology. If science continues to misidentify Fundamentalism as Christianity, then science risks alienating its most valuable allies in keeping evolution taught in public schools and excluding creationism as being misrepresented as a valid scientific theory. In all the court cases against creationism (and in favor of evolution) in the United States, the plaintiffs have always been Christians. Not just theists, but Christians. The plaintiffs were not atheists and not scientists. Scientists only come in to give expert testimony, not to initiate the lawsuits to begin with. In the famous 1982 case of MacLean vs Arkansas that prohibited the teaching of young earth creationism, there were 26 plaintiffs. 23 were ministers or rabbis; the other 3 were educators and Christians. In the recent Dover case that prohibited teaching intelligent design creationism, there were 8 plaintiffs. Again, all were Christians.

 

If the Christian community is alienated by saying science is in conflict with theism and forcing that community to choose either atheism or rejecting science, then science loses the social and political battle. Worse, putting science in conflict with theism misrepresents science! It warps and distorts what science is, what it can and cannot tell us, and how science works. Creationism attacks individual theories. Saying that science refutes theism attacks the very foundations of science.

 

By that reasoning, everyone who does not kill their children for talking back is not a Christian.

 

Don't be silly. You are not applying the reasoning I used. The First Commandment is foundational for Judeo-Christianity. It says there is only one god and that believers can only worship that god. It clearly states that turning anything else into a god is against the religion.

 

OTOH, the Deut 21:18-21 is a minor rule. It is not in any sense foundational for two reasons:

1. Stoning recalcitrant children is not in the creeds. Believing in Yahweh is.

2. Paul states that the Laws no longer apply, but the Commandments do. Therefore this Law is not a necessary part of Christianity.

 

As I told Sisyphus, accepting evolution is logical conclusion from the foundational beliefs/statements of Christianity. Fundamentalism has different foundational beliefs/statements. From those foundational beliefs -- belief in a literal and inerrant Bible -- it is "logical" to reject evolution/geology/physics/cosmology because they contradict much of a literal Genesis 1-8.

 

I put "logical" in quotes as applied to Fundamentalism because Fundamentalism has many internal logical contradictions and the Fundamentalist has to arbitrarily pick and choose among the inconsistencies to get the particular "logic" involved in rejecting scientific theories.

[lucaspa]

How do you know that a dog doesn't have the intelligence to understand its own soul? You and I are not dogs.

 

How do you or djmacarro know dogs have souls to begin with? How do we objectively and intersubjectively identify a soul?

 

Part of our discussion of soul is based upon the ability to conceive and verbalize abstract thoughts. Dogs certainly don't have the ability to verbalize. If the ability to have abstract thoughts is dependent on brain size (and much evidence suggests it is), then dogs don't have large enough brains.

[lucaspa]

This thread has lost its way somewhat.

 

Somewhat. However, whenever areas of science that are in conflict with creationism are discussed, I submit the forum needs to allow space to discuss the interaction of science and religion. You have tried to shove these discussions off to other boards or close them entirely (I see you closed the Philosophy of Science section). Sayonara, you can't treat or limit science to simply a collection of facts. Collecting facts are the most boring and trivial part of science.

 

What is really important in science is formulating and evaluating hypotheses/theories. This is the exciting part of science. And whenever this is done, some theories are going to be extrapolated beyond science to other areas of our lives. You can't stop it; people from PZ Meyer and Daniel Dennett to the lay interested person on this board is going to do that. Thus, if you are going to have a 'science forum', then that aspect of the scientific discussion is going to come up. You are going to have Socrates say that science and theism are in conflict. Part of science is evaluating whether that is true.

 

You might argue that this is not part of any particular scientific theory, but it is part of how people view and use science. And it is of great importance to everyone interested in science and who might want to become a scientist. How is the public perception of science going to impact government funding of science in the next 50 years? Will it go so far as to have outside oversight as to what scientists can study? Will it even influence the conclusions scientists can reach? And I mean that on both extremes of the religion - atheism continuum. After all, there are some studies vocal atheists don't think should be done, too, and some conclusions that are not acceptable to them.

 

So, I think you are either going to have to find a place for these discussions of science and the wider society or they are going to keep cropping up piecemeal as posters make comments about science.

[hypertilly]

We don't know.

But like djmacarro I believe that all animals have souls. my question to him was how do we know that they do not possess the intelligience to understand their own souls.

The point you make about verbalizing thought is irrelevant as far as a dog is concerned. We do not know or understand every nuance or noise or movement that a dog makes to other dogs.

We largely only understand dogs in relation to ourselves.

 

Do we say that a new baby has no soul because we do not understand everything which is expressed within their crying?

[Sayonara]

Somewhat. However, whenever areas of science that are in conflict with creationism are discussed, I submit the forum needs to allow space to discuss the interaction of science and religion.

You have tried to shove these discussions off to other boards or close them entirely (I see you closed the Philosophy of Science section).

Actually, the Philosophy of Science section - like so many subforums - was closed due to lack of use, so perhaps the need you describe is simply not something people on this site actually have.

 

Sayonara, you can't treat or limit science to simply a collection of facts. Collecting facts are the most boring and trivial part of science.

I don't see how you can start out at "the religion forum was taken off the science site" and get to "science has been limited to boring facts".

 

So, I think you are either going to have to find a place for these discussions of science and the wider society or they are going to keep cropping up piecemeal as posters make comments about science.

Which is fine, but the fact remains - this thread is somewhat off-topic.

 

I don't particularly disagree with much of what you said in your unnecessarily extensive post. In fact I am all for much of it (except the bits I commented on, obviously).

 

BUT... you have been here long enough to know that:

 

a) if you are diverting a thread into a new discussion that has both merit and interest, the polite thing to do is start a new thread,

 

and

 

b) if you have concerns about changes to the site, there is usually at least one thread devoted to discussing those changes, not to mention an entire "suggestions and comments" forum.

 

I don't intend to have a protracted argument about this.

[rooters]

In reference to the apparant "randomness" of ERV Insertions, what impact if any result in this example that ERV's are not that random afterall?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051128010951.htm

 

A human DNA-associated protein called LEDGF is the first such molecule found to control the location of HIV integration in human cells, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. This study, published in this week's early online edition of Nature Medicine, describes the first clear target for modulating where viruses insert into the human genome, which has implications for better design of gene-therapy delivery. Retroviral vectors are often used to introduce therapeutic genetic sequences into human chromosomes, such as in the delivery of Factor VIII for hemophilia patients

[lucaspa]

In reference to the apparant "randomness" of ERV Insertions, what impact if any result in this example that ERV's are not that random afterall?

 

No impact on the fact that ERV's falsify creationism and strongly support evolution.

 

The main argument about ERVs was NOT that they were "random", but rather, if they were random or not, then there should be no pattern of relatedness to them.

 

Think about this. If the insertion is not random but targets specific areas of the DNA, then every species with those areas should have the ERV. The problem is that this isn't what we see. Gorillas have some ERVs in common with us and chimps, from when the common ancestor was targeted. BUT, they don't have others even when the DNA area is the same. Yet your hypothesis says that they should, because the virus should put the ERV in every species where there is that sequence.

 

Now, if the insertion is random and species are not related thru common ancestry, then there also should be no pattern of relatedness.

[lucaspa]

Actually, the Philosophy of Science section - like so many subforums - was closed due to lack of use, so perhaps the need you describe is simply not something people on this site actually have.

 

Yes, they do. Because issues on the philosophy of science show up on other forums. For instance, in the Medicine forum now was a thread on Occam's Razor. That's philosophy of science -- theory evaluation.

 

I don't see how you can start out at "the religion forum was taken off the science site" and get to "science has been limited to boring facts".

 

That's because the argument was in the next paragraph! You might try reading the entire post and argument next time before you reply.

[lucaspa]

We don't know.

But like djmacarro I believe that all animals have souls. my question to him was how do we know that they do not possess the intelligience to understand their own souls.

 

By noting that the required intelligence requires a large and complex brain in order to contemplate abstract thought. Dogs don't have the required brain.

 

The point you make about verbalizing thought is irrelevant as far as a dog is concerned. We do not know or understand every nuance or noise or movement that a dog makes to other dogs.

We largely only understand dogs in relation to ourselves.

 

Which means 2 things:

1. You don't know dogs have souls, because the only reason we think humans have souls is because humans can discuss the subject with other humans. As you stated "I believe that all animals have souls." That's fine. You have stated a belief. But you can't go from that belief to taking it as a factual premise without the data. And, as you admit, you can't get the data!

 

2. My point wasn't only about "verbalizing thought", but having the ability to form abstract thoughts to begin with.

 

Do we say that a new baby has no soul because we do not understand everything which is expressed within their crying?

 

Rhe only reason we even consider that babies have souls is because, as adults, we have the ability to formulate and communicate (verbalize) abstract thought. Dogs don't have that ability as adults. Therefore you have no means of determining whether dogs have souls.

[Sayonara]

Yes, they do. Because issues on the philosophy of science show up on other forums. For instance, in the Medicine forum now was a thread on Occam's Razor. That's philosophy of science -- theory evaluation.

I said lack of use, not absence of use.

 

As you will be well aware if you have ever glanced at the "Why is there no forum for...?" thread in the Suggestions and Comments forum, we strictly avoid maintaining or creating sub-forums for which there is only a trickle demand, and we are happy to accommodate a handful of such discussions in other, perhaps less appropriate, sub-forums.

 

If enough demand arises, requested forums will (re)appear. Believe me, the Philosophy of Science sub-forum has been discussed extensively amongst the SFN Staff. It was not closed on a whim.

 

That's because the argument was in the next paragraph! You might try reading the entire post and argument next time before you reply.

Touché.

 

I have to say I don't think it is particularly intuitive for a user to discuss a scientific theory in one sub-forum, but have to go seeking out another thread in another sub-forum (a thread which may not exist) in order to discuss the implications, applications, etc. We are quite happy for such on-topic discussion to occur in the "hard science" areas.

 

To justify the depth decisions that we make when we add sub-forums, we need actual demand. Not the presence of a few dozen dead threads and a handful of live discussions which might be relevant, but demand.

 

And that is why we have the "Why is there no forum for...?" thread. It is where those demands should be directed.

[Stan]

Sorry to bring up such an old thread, but I am curious about a statement made:

 

First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right?

 

Well, no. ERV preferentially selects some sites more than others. According to this page on the Genome Biology website, the number of insertion points ranges from hundreds to thousands, depending on the type of vector doing the inserting. So, the odds of two species with a similar genome having the same insertion patterns is about a million times better than you indicate.