Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[Senator Sbane]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

I don't think anybody has said that and I would think these debates do occur in classrooms across America all the time. I am sure most end with the teacher respectfully telling the student that in science class you learn what is proven theory at the current moment. Obviously a HS student of intro bio does not have the skills or expertise to challenge a well accepted scientific theory. But like I said if somebody cares so much about it they can become get their bio degree and argue with their professors as much as they like. Of course all these damn courses I have to take would just "brainwash" the lover of christ.

Right here:

OK, here is what she really said:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

There are a few others as well.

JJ I was not saying that debate should be prohibited if someone asked a question about it. I just don't think it is the responsibility of high school bio teachers to bring up this topic for discussion. Now I would not have cared if there was a debate in my school since even in my suburban kinda republican city , most kids knew that evolution is a proven theory. Like I said my ap bio teacher even tried to start this discussion since we obviously knew a bit about biology and could discuss the topic intelligently. Nobody wanted to argue the other side though, oh well.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

Metaphysical thinking does not have to be an evolutionary advantage.  It has to be the most successful mutation.  The mutation that you're suggesting is more successful is ridiculously improbable because of the way our brains are structured.  Do you dispute this, and how?

But, according to you (and me), the group that begins to think metaphysically is least advantaged.  In theory, at least, it should be an unsuccessful mutation (if it is a mutation).

At this point, we're going in circles on the "correction" thing.  They're not mutually exclusive.  You're assuming one "corrects" the other arbitrarily.  Unless you can demonstrate they're mutually exclusive, you're arguing to conclusions.  And, as I already said, I doubt she cares about issue enough to govern about it.  I can still disagree with her personal opinion, even if it doesn't affect governance.  Where have I said it would?

Okay, so I don't like Michelle Obama's hair (I actually didn't like her old 'do).  Is that truly a qualification to elect her husband?  Is tht something to complain about?

Looking at what she said, that the second comment modified the first, no, it would not be abritrary. 

Sorry, I meant "Group A," not "Group B"; it was a typographical error.  In any case, Group A is the one which I posit would not gain the upper hand via mutation, making your point entirely academic.

Well then, explain how there is an advantage, and note that I didn't attribute a cause. (and, a likely story.)

[Grad Students are the Worst]

J. J.,

My argument is that:  Advanced thinking, but perhaps sometimes distracted by metacognition > Less advanced thinking  The survival skills of the former outweigh the focus of the latter.  I don't think that's an unrealistic argument.  Look at animals today; do you think our metacognitive distractions very derisively affect our standing in the animal kingdom relative to the more focused animals?  I don't.

I never said this has anything to do with my vote for President.  It doesn't.  I'm disagreeing with her personal opinion.  Why are you assuming that I was saying anyone should base their vote on this?

Why does Group A have an advantage?  Because, in your scenario, they're less distracted.  Now explain how a mutation that causes Group A could happen, given the ridiculously specific, un-random changes it would require in the structure of the primate mind.  As I said earlier, evolution doesn't just happen because it would be a good idea; a mutation has to happen, and have headroom to take hold.  That's a fundamental part of the theory of evolution, and demonstrable in microevolutionary studies too.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

My argument is that:  Advanced thinking, but perhaps sometimes distracted by metacognition > Less advanced thinking  The survival skills of the former outweigh the focus of the latter.  I don't think that's an unrealistic argument.  Look at animals today; do you think our metacognitive distractions very derisively affect our standing in the animal kingdom relative to the more focused animals?  I don't.

Except these other animals do not (yet) show any signs of metaphysical thinking, so really don't have that comparison. 

Why does Group A have an advantage?  Because, in your scenario, they're less distracted.  Now explain how a mutation that causes Group A could happen, given the ridiculously specific, un-random changes it would require in the structure of the primate mind.  As I said earlier, evolution doesn't just happen because it would be a good idea; a mutation has to happen, and have headroom to take hold.  That's a fundamental part of the theory of evolution, and demonstrable in microevolutionary studies too.

It is not the "distraction" but the diversion of resources, even time.  Ah, how this change be "un random."  I bluntly doubt that when this change started, it did not occur is the whole range of the genus Homo at the same time.

Both groups have metacognition; as you've pointed out some animal species have metacognation, but they don't think metaphysically.

The question is that one group, for whatever reason, begins to think about its surroundings in a different way.  It ask a hypothetical question and diverts resources to this question and the other group doesn't.  All other factors are the same.  Which group is more viable.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

J. J.,

They show signs of abstract though, which is a basic form of what leads to metacognition.  Same parts of the brain.  Etc. etc.  You're going in circles, I've already answered that twice.

"Distraction" and "diversion" are freaking synonyms.

No, it didn't occur in the whole genus at the same time.  That's not how evolution works.  No one is proposing that.  But it has to be advantageous and common enough (in combination) to eventually gain genetic dominance.

What other animal species have metacognition?  I said they have abstract thought.  You're misunderstanding my use of "metacognition," and using a definition I've never heard before.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

They show signs of abstract though, which is a basic form of what leads to metacognition.  Same parts of the brain.  Etc. etc.  You're going in circles, I've already answered that twice.

Yes, the answer is animals have metacognition, in all probability, at some level but they don't think metaphysically.

"Distraction" and "diversion" are freaking synonyms.

"Distraction" is not a synonym of "diversion of resources."    That idiocy deserves another.

No, it didn't occur in the whole genus at the same time.  That's not how evolution works.  No one is proposing that. 

Good, I was having a hard time with a scenario for that one.

But it has to be advantageous and common enough (in combination) to eventually gain genetic dominance.
[/quote

And in the thought experiment, you have that.  How is it advantageous?

What other animal species have metacognition?  I said they have abstract thought.  You're misunderstanding my use of "metacognition," and using a definition I've never heard before.

Primates, and believe it or not, rats. 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308121856.htm

[Grad Students are the Worst]

J. J.,

I told you how it's advantageous several times.  High critical thinking skills are evolutionary beneficial in tool-making, hunting, etc.  Ability to think metaphysically comes along with those, because they are the same part of the brain.  You still haven't rebutted this argument at all.  This must at least be the fifth post where I've asked you to.  What's with that?

The rat thing is interesting, and you're right, I shouldn't have been using "metacognition" simultaneously!  However, my prior point still stands -- in the primate brain, you would need drastically different wiring to have our level of tool-making/hunting skills without being able to think metaphysically.

You, again, still have not answered to that.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

I told you how it's advantageous several times.  High critical thinking skills are evolutionary beneficial in tool-making, hunting, etc.  Ability to think metaphysically comes along with those, because they are the same part of the brain.  You still haven't rebutted this argument at all.  This must at least be the fifth post where I've asked you to.  What's with that?

No, see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with "critical thinking."  We have species, non Homo, that do make tools and have "language," and they don't make the jump to metaphysical thinking.  That, BTW, is "science," in the broadest sense of the word.

The rat thing is interesting, and you're right, I shouldn't have been using "metacognition" simultaneously!  However, my prior point still stands -- in the primate brain, you would need drastically different wiring to have our level of tool-making/hunting skills without being able to think metaphysically.

You, again, still have not answered to that.

No, I question you premise.  What makes think that this is the case? 

Why did the jump to metaphysical thinking occur and how did it become evolutionary advantageous?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

No, see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with "critical thinking."  We have species, non Homo, that do make tools and have "language," and they don't make the jump to metaphysical thinking.  That, BTW, is "science," in the broadest sense of the word.

No, they didn't, and if I claimed they'd have to, I'd be misrepresenting basic evolutionary theory.  So, assume that I'm not.

You clearly haven't read the Bruce Lahn study if you "see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with 'critical thinking.'"  That's what the latter third of the study is about.  I gave you that citation three times.  You're not even trying to be intellectually honest, you're just arguing to conclusions.  So, I'm done.  All the best.

[J. J.]

No, see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with "critical thinking."  We have species, non Homo, that do make tools and have "language," and they don't make the jump to metaphysical thinking.  That, BTW, is "science," in the broadest sense of the word.

No, they didn't, and if I claimed they'd have to, I'd be misrepresenting basic evolutionary theory.  So, assume that I'm not.

I'll treat this as Palinesque second comment.

You clearly haven't read the Bruce Lahn study if you "see no evidence that metaphysical thinking comes along with 'critical thinking.'"  That's what the latter third of the study is about.  I gave you that citation three times.  You're not even trying to be intellectually honest, you're just arguing to conclusions.  So, I'm done.  All the best.

I did read it.  It doesn't.  It does note that one type of amino acid changed most dramatically before the evolutionary branching into genus Homo, i.e. prior to the divergence of great apes and genus Homo, and prior to tool making and language.  It also changed more quickly in ancestral chimpanzees than in genus Homo.  That tells me this is not what were looking for.

It also generally deals with genetic changes that occurred prior to genus Homo (and note that I do not say humans) diverging from the ancestors of chimpanzees, which adds little to the case.

It doesn't deal with any linkage between "critical thinking" and metaphysical thinking.  That seems to be your own spin.  If I may use an an example of analogous thinking, you become to genetic evolution what jmfcst is to the Bible.

The Evans, et al. paper did include one comment, an observation, that is relevant. "There is an inherent fascination in the genetic underpinnings of human evolution, especially with regard to the human brain. " 

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/11/1139

I think that is correct, but why is that fascination now inherent.   Genetics do not seem to be the answer.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Sigh.

"Palinesque second comment"?  So, instead of actually responding to my point they're not mutually exclusive, you totally mis-apply (I wasn't correcting) a conversational reference in an attempt to poke fun.  Totally mind-bogging, man, really is.

You read the wrong Lahn study.  Lahn (being an academic) has been involved in more than one study.  That there would be Evans, et al..  I would have referred to it as the "Evans" study.  It would have been relevant to the topic at hand.  If the primary study author is different, and the topic is different, chances are you have the wrong study.

I'm laying down my burden here.  We could probably go through an advanced discussion about the function of the brain.  I know I'd probably learn some stuff.  I'm pretty sure you (since you're no expert in this field, not knowing the HGP's relevance) would too.  But, honestly, I don't think you're at all interested in changing your mind.  I've never seen you do that on this forum.  I may be obstinate or prone to confirmation bias sometimes, but I do try.  Perhaps we could both learn something from Governor Palin, or not, as the case may be.

[Lunar]

I'm the "give up and save your time" cheerleader.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I'm the "give up and save your time" cheerleader.

Your team won when I realized I've probably spent like 12 hours researching/arguing a topic I have no passion about whatsoever, with no practical application to boot. 

Which, really, you'd think I should have done about 11 hours and 50 minutes ago.

[Lunar]

Hey, you don't see my writing these messages in the middle of most arguments.  I write these tips for a reason, haha.

A good debate can be had when both sides refuse to compromise from the get-go, but a debate against a figurative wall is a waste sir.

[J. J.]

I'm the "give up and save your time" cheerleader.

Your team won when I realized I've probably spent like 12 hours researching/arguing a topic I have no passion about whatsoever, with no practical application to boot. 

Why?  That is a serious question and that is part of the question that I have.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Why?  That is a serious question and that is part of the question that I have.

<something muttered under breath about Wisconsin trending>

[J. J.]

Why?  That is a serious question and that is part of the question that I have.

<something muttered under breath about Wisconsin trending>

Well, let's see.

So far in this thread you've misrepresented science.  It looks like your god, the one called Science (as in method, not conclusion), is beginning to hemorrhage. 

Or what Jimfsct is to the Bible is what Alcon is to science.

(Hey, I'm just holding everyone to the same standard.)

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Well, let's see.

So far in this thread you've misrepresented science.  It looks like your god, the one called Science (as in method, not conclusion), is beginning to hemorrhage. 

Or what Jimfsct is to the Bible is what Alcon is to science.

(Hey, I'm just holding everyone to the same standard.)

You're mocking me because you read the wrong study, and refused to substantiate your claim that an evolutionary block in the brain is a likely mutation.  OK. 

(Jmfcst, by the way.)

[J. J.]

Well, let's see.

So far in this thread you've misrepresented science.  It looks like your god, the one called Science (as in method, not conclusion), is beginning to hemorrhage. 

Or what Jimfsct is to the Bible is what Alcon is to science.

(Hey, I'm just holding everyone to the same standard.)

You're mocking me because you read the wrong study, and refused to substantiate your claim that an evolutionary block in the brain is a likely mutation.  OK. 

(Jmfcst, by the way.)

Well, why don't repost the link.  As you know I'll read it.  Unlike you, I'm not closed minded.  The others you've linked to conflict with your premises.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I really promised myself that I wouldn't continue this.  I was looking at another Lahn study, the one that has Lahn as the primary author.  I'll look it up next time I have access to my college's academic database.  But I really don't think you have much interest in actually researching this, since you didn't look into footnotes, the HGP, anything...

I've really never seen you change your mind on the Atlas.  I don't mean that disrespectfully--you could have just coincidentally always been right.  Maybe you have that power.  But it seems useless to me to bother, considering your record.  You also still haven't substantiated your claim re: "blocks" on brain development, and that was more critical to your central claim (that natural genetic evolution would not explain the leap) than my reference to the Lahn article (which was essentially peripheral substantiation)

I'm really not close-minded.  Have I seemed that way in other discussions?  In fact, I openly admit to not knowing much on this subject, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.  Besides, you keep calling me a slave to science--so I don't understand why you're bothering with having me look up the science.  Doesn't that just encourage my dependency?

Unless you make an honest attempt to explain how such a mental block would develop by mutation, I'm done.  You can have the last word.  But if it's not a word about that, don't expect a response.

[J. J.]

I really promised myself that I wouldn't continue this.  I was looking at another Lahn study, the one that has Lahn as the primary author.  I'll look it up next time I have access to my college's academic database.  But I really don't think you have much interest in actually researching this, since you didn't look into footnotes, the HGP, anything...

If you remember correctly, I got the Evans paper (Lahn was a co-author) from the footnotes.

Now, I'm willing to look at others.

I've really never seen you change your mind on the Atlas.  I don't mean that disrespectfully--you could have just coincidentally always been right.  Maybe you have that power.  But it seems useless to me to bother, considering your record.  You also still haven't substantiated your claim re: "blocks" on brain development, and that was more critical to your central claim (that natural genetic evolution would not explain the leap) than my reference to the Lahn article (which was essentially peripheral substantiation)

I don't recall posting anything about something that "blocks" brain development.  I posited an example where one separated group of the same species develops in one way while another develops in a different way.  I think another name for that is "natural selection."

The Evans article was interesting, these were some of the points:

1.  Genetic changes likely increased brain function (I won't use "brain size").

2.  The genetic changes were likely associated with amino acids.

3.  Some increases in these key amino acids occurred before the split between great ape and human/chimp ancestry.

4.  Some of those changes occurred after that split.

I agree that this is an example of genetic brain evolution.  It makes sense.  Humans make tools and use language.  Chimps make tools (very rudimentary) and use language.  Other closely related species don't.

Now comes point five.

5.  The amino acid in #4 is higher in modern chimps than in modern humans (if I read it correctly).

Huh, if this is correct, why aren't chimps more advanced?  This can't be the mechanism.  There has to be another mechanism.

Now, if this was the mechanism, I'd say, "Hey, that explains it."  There may be another mechanism, but this can be it.

And, this isn't a question of me changing my mind.  I haven't found any evidence to reach any conclusion (except the mechanism wasn't the one in the Evans paper).

I'm really not close-minded.  Have I seemed that way in other discussions?  In fact, I openly admit to not knowing much on this subject, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.  Besides, you keep calling me a slave to science--so I don't understand why you're bothering with having me look up the science.  Doesn't that just encourage my dependency?

I think you are being closed minded when you say, science provides the answer to this question, and then can't produce the answer.  If you say, "You know what, in this case, science does not provide an answer, at this point in time, at least," I think that would be a start.  The question itself is important and is the basis of why science itself exists.

You have not.

Unless you make an honest attempt to explain how such a mental block would develop by mutation, I'm done.  You can have the last word.  But if it's not a word about that, don't expect a response.

As I've said, I don't recall discussing a mental "block."  If you are referring to the two groups from a separated parent group, I can give an example.

 In the parent group there is no mutation.  The groups become separated into two groups, A and B.  In group A, no mutation occurs.  In group B, a mutation occurs and, in several generations, the mutation spreads through group B.  There is no "block" in this example, because the mutation never occurred in Group A.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

My understanding of this issue is different from yours.  I do not think, from my understanding of the brain, that a mental block as you suggest could be a result of a mutation.  The "mental block" I'm talking about would allow us to only think about survival, and therefore prosper more.  Frankly, I feel that you haven't addressed this. 

I have no database access now, so I can't give you a link until later.  And honestly, I'm getting a little fatigued.  This got too personal and I'm not enjoying it -- not because I'm suspicious I'm wrong, which I'm fine with (especially on topics I'm new to), but because I'm worried I'm just in it to "win."  And that's lame.

So, here, a position clarification:  I don't know if science provides an answer.  I really don't!  I don't "know" anything until I'm immersed in a topic and can analyze it from every level, poke holes in it, and fill those holes.  And there's still some inherent trust involved in what could be a flawed process.  Totally.

I'm not convinced that "science has an answer."  That would be against science, my god, or whatever mockism we're going with.  I'm also not convinced in science because I want to believe in science.  Science is application and interpretation of empirical evidence.  I do tend to "believe" in empirical evidence.  I think that you do, too, maybe with an addition metaphysical faith in God.  But belief and faith are not the same thing.  The latter may be demonstrable to you, but your religious dogmas teach that even if it weren't, you would still have faith in it, because that's faith.  But there is a distinction there.  (I don't really want to get into an epistemological argument; I'm putting that out there.)

[J. J.]

My understanding of this issue is different from yours.  I do not think, from my understanding of the brain, that a mental block as you suggest could be a result of a mutation.  The "mental block" I'm talking about would allow us to only think about survival, and therefore prosper more.  Frankly, I feel that you haven't addressed this. 

Because it is generally instinctual and because, we don't see this in non Homo genus (there is evidence it existed in non human genus Homo), even where they meet a lot of the other characteristics.  If chimps started asking, "Why is their fruit," I'd have my answer, or at least a partial one.

[In that respect, I'm wondering seriously, if someone would raise the subject with a chimpanzee today, if the chimp would begin to think about it (not intelligent design, but "intelligent influencing").]

The second part of the question is, why divert the resources to answering the question.  Religion, or shamanism, which eventually developed as an answer (usually wrong) the question, took resources from survival.  Genus Homo, for some reason, that does not appear to be evolutionary, bluntly, found it worth the effort.

The Evans paper said, "There is an inherent fascination in the genetic underpinnings of human evolution, especially with regard to the human brain. "   I agree, but I'm asking, why is that?  Why is Homo alone curious about thinks like this, even thought they don't help with survival and they don't bring gratification in a physical sense.

I have no database access now, so I can't give you a link until later.  And honestly, I'm getting a little fatigued.  This got too personal and I'm not enjoying it -- not because I'm suspicious I'm wrong, which I'm fine with (especially on topics I'm new to), but because I'm worried I'm just in it to "win."  And that's lame.

I win fully, when you say, here is the answer.  I win only partly when you say, **Gee, science does not yet have the answer.**

So, here, a position clarification:  I don't know if science provides an answer.  I really don't!  I don't "know" anything until I'm immersed in a topic and can analyze it from every level, poke holes in it, and fill those holes.  And there's still some inherent trust involved in what could be a flawed process.  Totally.

Well, I'm looking for a reasonably plausible answer.  I actually have reasonably plausible answers for most of human evolution that involves perfectly natural processes.  I don't yet have one for the question I'm asking.  So far, I don't have it.

I'm not convinced that "science has an answer."  That would be against science, my god, or whatever mockism we're going with.  I'm also not convinced in science because I want to believe in science.  Science is application and interpretation of empirical evidence.  I do tend to "believe" in empirical evidence.  I think that you do, too, maybe with an addition metaphysical faith in God.  But belief and faith are not the same thing.  The latter may be demonstrable to you, but your religious dogmas teach that even if it weren't, you would still have faith in it, because that's faith.  But there is a distinction there.  (I don't really want to get into an epistemological argument; I'm putting that out there.)

I'm trying to keep my faith and belief out of it, but, let me be clear, if the answer is: "science doesn't (yet) have an answer," my answer is not "God did it." Or the Vorlons, or the FSM.  I'm actually looking for empirical evidence that "The is plausible explanation within science for this." (Crudely, "God didn't do this.")  With most of human evolution I can say that.  So far, I can't.

I'd hate to blame God for science if it wasn't Her fault. 

[Grad Students are the Worst]

The evolutionary theory, insofar as I'm familiar with it, teaches that divergent species evolve differently with different evolutionary capacities.  Saying that chimps evolving metaphysical thinking would explain it, doesn't make much sense.  It would just give us another incidence.   There would still be no explanation offered.  I figure you'd probably still be making the same argument.  For consistency, you very well should.

I'm not sure if you've won, other than stymying me (not hard ).  You're kidding us both if you're claiming to be intimately familiar with the research on this matter.  I don't feel that you've rebutted my argument; you do.  I don't feel you've substantiated your argument; you do.  I'm not enjoying this, and I don't recall you ever have changing your mind in your 17,000+ posts.  So, I'm conceding that I can't change your mind, pleading no contest.  You've effectively won.  I wish you the same result in your ongoing battle with the QUOTE tag.

Other than that, I actually think your conclusion is very fair.  It's also a very scientific way of going about things.  I'm just saying, we should all be aware of regressive thinking, confirmation bias.  We all do it.  And I'm aware of that, which is exactly why your taunts were misfounded.

[A18]

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.