IPUs, Religion, Science, and all that Jazz

[ajames]

like how many are there, where are they, are they beneficial? and how can they be pink if they are invisible?

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
 - Steve Eley, circa 1995

I had a whole manifesto written up at one point, but the exact text has been lost to history and pre-Web Telnet-based BBS systems.  I remember there was a model of the expanding universe based on raisin bread.  I remember that IPUs were responsible for stealing your socks. 

I remember writing that mosquitoes don't actuallly bite people; rather, they flock around IPUs the way horseflies flock around horses.  The raised, itchy welt is the Invisible Pink Unicorn poking you with its horn for your sins.  Since you can't see the IPU, you blame the mosquito instead.

I also remember not wanting to be the High Priest.  HPs are figureheads, and the first against the all when the revolution comes.  I was Chief Advocate and Spokesguy instead, meaning I got to make up cool manifestos and nobody blamed me for what happened.

A friend of mine started the first schism by founding the Cult of the Very Stealthy Maroon Pegasi.  His branch didn't get very far, however.  How could it?  Maroon pegasi are ridiculous.

Steve made some comments about Religion, Science, and Invisible Pink Unicorns in the intro to the "Neils Bohr and the Sleeping Dane" episode.  There's a lot that has and could be said on religion and science, and anyone interested in doing so, please do.  I included Steve's words about IPUs to start it off.

[Russell Nash]

I think spinning off this arguement was a little premature, but whatever. 

The "conflict" between science and religion isn't about whether there is a god or which god it is.  It's about when people say a certain scientific conclusion can't be true because it contradicts the Bible or some belief.

The ultimate example is evolution.  Every new scientific discovery and technological advance that has been aimed at evolution has only proved to make it stronger.  You don't hear anyone saying DNA sequencing is wrong because it contradicts evolution.  You hear that this animal belongs over here and this one belongs here, but evolution as a whole was right and now we have a clearer picture.  Galileo and Pi are a couple more examples.

If religious people just admitted that they weren't given all of the secrets to science in the Bible and man was meant to discover them, there would be no conflict between science and religion. 

[FNH]

If religious people just admitted that they weren't given all of the secrets to science in the Bible and man was meant to discover them, there would be no conflict between science and religion. 

Did you mean me?  Okay. I admit I wasn't given all of the secrets to science in the Bible and man was meant to discover them.

Ahem... And Now I've solved all the worlds problems  , I just found this on the interwebbytubes

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

How does that fit into the science vs faith debate?

[robertmarkbram]

I like traffic lights.

Especially when they are green.

[FNH]

I like traffic lights.

Especially when they are green.

Gotta, respect that.

[Mr. Tweedy]

The ultimate example is evolution.  Every new scientific discovery and technological advance that has been aimed at evolution has only proved to make it stronger.  You don't hear anyone saying DNA sequencing is wrong because it contradicts evolution.  You hear that this animal belongs over here and this one belongs here, but evolution as a whole was right and now we have a clearer picture.

Actually, my rejection of Evoltion has little to do with my religion.  I'm not 100% sure that the Theory of Evolution and Christianity are incompatible.  That is, if Evolution could somehow be proved to be true, my religious ideas could probably adapt to incorporate that.  It wouldn't destroy me.

My rejection of Evolution is more closely related to a lifetime of public school textbooks, Scientific American articles, National Geographic foldouts, Carl Sagan books and sci-fi novels.  I just don't buy it.  I don't find the evidence convincing enough to compel belief, and I can explain why I disbelieve without once appealing to the Bible.

[Russell Nash]

The ultimate example is evolution.  Every new scientific discovery and technological advance that has been aimed at evolution has only proved to make it stronger.  You don't hear anyone saying DNA sequencing is wrong because it contradicts evolution.  You hear that this animal belongs over here and this one belongs here, but evolution as a whole was right and now we have a clearer picture.

Actually, my rejection of Evoltion has little to do with my religion.  I'm not 100% sure that the Theory of Evolution and Christianity are incompatible.  That is, if Evolution could somehow be proved to be true, my religious ideas could probably adapt to incorporate that.  It wouldn't destroy me.

My rejection of Evolution is more closely related to a lifetime of public school textbooks, Scientific American articles, National Geographic foldouts, Carl Sagan books and sci-fi novels.  I just don't buy it.  I don't find the evidence convincing enough to compel belief, and I can explain why I disbelieve without once appealing to the Bible.

And how much scrutiny did you give to ID before you accepted it?

Did you mean me?  Okay. I admit I wasn't given all of the secrets to science in the Bible and man was meant to discover them.

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

How does that fit into the science vs faith debate?

The thing is there are very few scientists who go around screaming at people for believing in a god.  But you have school boards trying to replace 145 years of scientific work on evolution with 4 years of work on ID. 

The fight is almost always like this:

Scientist:  Look what I discovered.
Religious person:  But the Bible says it happened this way.
S:  I worked on it for years and have had other scientists check my work.  They all come to the same conclusion.
RP:  You hate GOD.
S:  What does that have to do with it.
RP:  You spoke against the Bible.
S:  I gave you verifiable results based on proper scientific method.
RP:  You hate GOD. You want the devil to come and take us all.
S:  I don't know about a god.  I don't have any evidence either way.
RP:  But you spoke against him.
S:  I just gave you my results.  You guys are all crazy.
etc. …

[FNH]

Scientist:  Look what I discovered.
Religious person:  But the Bible says it happened this way.
S:  I worked on it for years and have had other scientists check my work.  They all come to the same conclusion.
RP:  You hate GOD.
S:  What does that have to do with it.
RP:  You spoke against the Bible.
S:  I gave you verifiable results based on proper scientific method.
RP:  You hate GOD. You want the devil to come and take us all.
S:  I don't know about a god.  I don't have any evidence either way.
RP:  But you spoke against him.
S:  I just gave you my results.  You guys are all crazy.
etc. …

I'll bite.

What "verifiable results based on proper scientific method" prooves  Evolution?  Is is not just a theory that appears to  fit some objective facts.  No one has put evolution is a lab, focused a microscope on it for 300,000 years have they? Let me make a simple comparison.  The world is flat because it looks flat.

Let me also add that by evolution I'm referring to the process that makes your uncle a monkey, not the quick process that evolves fruit flys into... fruit flys with attitude.

[wherethewild]

Let me also add that by evolution I'm referring to the process that makes your uncle a monkey, not the quick process that evolves fruit flys into... fruit flys with attitude.

What is the difference?

[FNH]

Let me also add that by evolution I'm referring to the process that makes your uncle a monkey, not the quick process that evolves fruit flys into... fruit flys with attitude.

What is the difference?

From the point of view where the bible comes into it...

Fruit flys live a few days and you can observe the changes.  Evolution I'm referring to makes our uncles into monkeys and takes hundreds of thousands of years.

I think these are very differn't.  Breeding a better sheep claiming your uncles are monkeys are completely differn't.

[FNH]

Let me also add that by evolution I'm referring to the process that makes your uncle a monkey, not the quick process that evolves fruit flys into... fruit flys with attitude.

What is the difference?

From the point of view where the bible comes into it...

Fruit flys live a few days and you can observe the changes.  Evolution I'm referring to makes our uncles into monkeys and takes hundreds of thousands of years.

I think these are very differn't.  Breeding a better sheep claiming your uncles are monkeys are completely differn't.

Perhaps a better example would be ... comparing the fizzy breakdown of the dispersable asprin, to proton-decay.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Let me also add that by evolution I'm referring to the process that makes your uncle a monkey, not the quick process that evolves fruit flys into... fruit flys with attitude.

What is the difference?

There is a huge amount of difference.

What I will call "adaptation" is easily viewed in nature.  It is well documented in many types of life and solid theories exist to explain how it happens.  Recessive genes, random mutation, sexual recombination: There are a dozen ways in which genetic diversity is created in a population of organisms.  For instance, within a population of Galapagos finches, you'll have slight variations in beak size.  An environmental change causes a disproportionate number of hard-shelled seeds to be grown in a given year.  The finches with bigger beaks are better able to crack these seeds, which means that the finches with bigger beaks are better nourished and able to produce more offspring.  Next season, the average beak size for Galapagos finches will be larger.

This sort of adaptation is proven by repeatable observation to occur and testable theory exists to explain how it happens.

Evolution is another idea and another story.  Evolution requires not only the refinement of existing features, but the genesis of new features.  This has never been observed to occur and–so far as I know–no theory exists to explain how it might happen.

When a beak exists, adaptation can refine it.  No one questions that.  But how does an animal that has teeth get a beak?  That is a problem of a qualitatively different nature.

[Russell Nash]

Let me also add that by evolution I'm referring to the process that makes your uncle a monkey, not the quick process that evolves fruit flys into... fruit flys with attitude.

What is the difference?

It's a bit like saying prove you can move rocks, but you can't do it with a rock less than 5000 pounds and you can't use any tools.

Scientists watch bacteria evolve in the lab.  Antibiotic resistance is entirely evolutionary based.  The next time you need antibiotics tell the doctor to give you the oldest kind that is still made, because you don't believe the infection could have evolved to develope resistance.

[wherethewild]

From the point of view where the bible comes into it...

The Bible doesn´t come into it though. Isn´t that what the whole argument is about?

Fruit flys live a few days and you can observe the changes.  Evolution I'm referring to makes our uncles into monkeys and takes hundreds of thousands of years.

Well first, let´s start with a definition of evolution then shall we? Here´s one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

So let´s have a look.. ahh yes, the first sentence: "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation."

Fruit flys have a life cycle of 12-14 days, one of the reasons they are used as a model organism. Evolutionary pressures can be implemented and investigated on a time scale that we can observe. You are attempting to argue that simply because it takes less than a year to observe evolutionary pressure at work on a population, that it must be different. You are failing to acknowledge that it is not the absolute time which is important, but the generational. This is obviously due to simply a lack of knowledge in the field, so I´m glad to have helped open your eyes.

Now let´s get to the monkey thing. Your Uncle isn´t a monkey (well he might be, one of mine certainly acts like that occasionally). Apes and humans share a common ancestor. This common ancestor was neither an ape nor a human as both of those two branched off later. You appear to be trying to argue simply because you think it´s personally offensive that you could in someway be compared to an ape. If that´s the case, then there is no point continuing this discussion with you.

[Russell Nash]

Mr. Tweedy,

We've had this arguement before, so let's do this a different way.  Explain why the current opposition to evolution is different from the opposition to Galileo's conclusions.

 After Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun the church forced him to revoke his statements and he was under essentially house arrest until he died.  If he had at anytime restated his conclusions, he would have been put to death.  The church admitted he was right in 1998, 380 years later.  

So what's the difference?

[wherethewild]

Evolution is another idea and another story.  Evolution requires not only the refinement of existing features, but the genesis of new features.  This has never been observed to occur and–so far as I know–no theory exists to explain how it might happen.

Alright. Here´s a fairly layman introduction to a theory on the evolution of the mammalian breast:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/breast_beginnings.php

Have fun.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Mr. Tweedy,

We've had this arguement before, so let's do this a different way.  Explain why the current opposition to evolution is different from the opposition to Galileo's conclusions.

 After Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun the church forced him to revoke his statements and he was under essentially house arrest until he died.  If he had at anytime restated his conclusions, he would have been put to death.  The church admitted he was right in 1998, 380 years later.  

So what's the difference?

That question is loaded, unfair, and irrelevant.  Why don't you explain to me why Evolution is not the modern equivalent of heliocentrism and the proponents of intelligent design are not the Galileo figures?  I don't actually expect you to do that: I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of your question.  It's really more of an insult: "I think you're a closed-minded dogmatist.  Prove that you're not."  I reject those terms.

[wherethewild]

Oh, oh, oh! He also has another one on the origin of insect wings:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/flap_those_gills_and_fly.php

And he addresses your initial point about something popping out of nothing with a nifty little look at limb and genital formation:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/generic_bumps_and_recycled_gen.php

[Russell Nash]

Mr. Tweedy,

We've had this arguement before, so let's do this a different way.  Explain why the current opposition to evolution is different from the opposition to Galileo's conclusions.

 After Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun the church forced him to revoke his statements and he was under essentially house arrest until he died.  If he had at anytime restated his conclusions, he would have been put to death.  The church admitted he was right in 1998, 380 years later.  

So what's the difference?

That question is loaded, unfair, and irrelevant.  Why don't you explain to me why Evolution is not the modern equivalent of heliocentrism and the proponents of intelligent design are not the Galileo figures?  I don't actually expect you to do that: I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of your question.  It's really more of an insult: "I think you're a closed-minded dogmatist.  Prove that you're not."  I reject those terms.

Unlike Galileo the ID guys haven't shown their research.  They haven't opened up to peer review.  They put their evidence out to Nature and I'll read it.  When you learn learn a little about scientific method, you'll see that ID is fiction and not even SF.  It's Fantasy.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Evolution is another idea and another story.  Evolution requires not only the refinement of existing features, but the genesis of new features.  This has never been observed to occur and–so far as I know–no theory exists to explain how it might happen.

Alright. Here´s a fairly layman introduction to a theory on the evolution of the mammalian breast:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/breast_beginnings.php

Have fun.

Yes?  I've read a hundred other articles just like this one.  As I said, I don't buy it.

For those of you who didn't click on the link, a synopsis: Breast and the milk they produce bear many similarities to mucus glands and to protective mucus.  Therefore, breasts evolved from glands whose original purpose was to squirt protective mucus onto eggs and baby ancestor-critters.

This is a fine example of the kind of question begging and spurious logic that plagues Evolutionary theories.  All evidence is circumstantial, nothing is actually proved and the researchers start their investigation with the assumption that breasts must have evolved from something, they've just got to guess what.  And, of course, no experiment is possible, so the criteria for proof are entirely arbitrary.

I would also add that this article does not claim that a new organ was generated, simply that a generic gland became specialized.

[wherethewild]

You don´t buy it because it hasn´t been recreated in a lab in front of your eyes, but you´d happily buy that a mystical superbeing created you because someone wrote that once?

You dismiss out of hand the theories you asked for us to provide you with on no good grounds. I´m happy for you to poke holes in any theory, that´s why they´re theories, yet waving your hands saying "No, no, no I don´t think it´s good enough" without reasoning is NOT disproving a theory.

The breast IS an example of a few cells becoming a specialised, more complex structure. The limb/genital formation IS an example of how an existing pathway could be co-opted to produce a different structure entirely. You wanted theories, you got them.

You want to dismiss the entire body of knowledge which has been created and still growing in science for the mythology of your holy book. Regardless of anything that science could show you, your mind is so closed and your indoctrination so complete that it´s an absolutely pointless waste of time talking to you.

[Bdoomed]

http://www.spore.com/index.php
yay evolution!... slash intelligent design.... slash adaptationish...

w/e it doesnt really affect any one of us directly riiiight?

anyways personally i believe in evolution.  like those of you who dont buy it, i just dont buy intelligent design.  (tho im DEFINATELY getting Spore!)

You want to dismiss the entire body of knowledge which has been created and still growing in science for the mythology of your holy book. Regardless of anything that science could show you, your mind is so closed and your indoctrination so complete that it´s an absolutely pointless waste of time talking to you.

woah there dude, no personal attacks, lets keep this civil.

[Mr. Tweedy]

You don´t buy it because it hasn´t been recreated in a lab in front of your eyes, but you´d happily buy that a mystical superbeing created you because someone wrote that once?

You dismiss out of hand the theories you asked for us to provide you with on no good grounds. I´m happy for you to poke holes in any theory, that´s why they´re theories, yet waving your hands saying "No, no, no I don´t think it´s good enough" without reasoning is NOT disproving a theory.

The breast IS an example of a few cells becoming a specialised, more complex structure. The limb/genital formation IS an example of how an existing pathway could be co-opted to produce a different structure entirely. You wanted theories, you got them.

You want to dismiss the entire body of knowledge which has been created and still growing in science for the mythology of your holy book. Regardless of anything that science could show you, your mind is so closed and your indoctrination so complete that it´s an absolutely pointless waste of time talking to you.

In other words, anyone who does not believe in Evolution is not qualified to criticize it.

[swdragoon]

   Ok  so evolution. It has been studied in many labs and in the real world and using the scientific method it appears to fit ie. “theory” but dose not fit all presented facts “not law”.
   Blind opposition to evolution be caws my pastor / priest told me its wrong. Is just beyond understanding.

[SFEley]

What "verifiable results based on proper scientific method" prooves  Evolution?

My dog.

I'm always flabbergasted when intelligent people say they don't believe in evolution.  It usually makes me think that there's a semantic failure somewhere.  I can only assume people are thinking the word "evolution" means something incredibly specific and arguable -- like Mr. Tweedy's specific example about breasts, or random arguments about the development of the eye.  All of that is totally beside the point.  It's arguing that trees don't exist because you can't explain some minor mechanism of chlorophyll.

Evolution simply means that species change and diversify based on reproductive pressures.  That's all.  It's not an atheist buzzword.  It doesn't imply absolute understanding of the complete history of life on earth.  It isn't even as specific as natural selection.  It just means that species change based on how they reproduce.  Shit, you can watch species change.  Someone crosses a Labrador and a poodle and calls it a Labradoodle?  They've just practiced limited evolution.  On a much longer timescale, most of our cultivated livestock and food crops came from wild ancestors that were totally different species.  People made cows out of aurochs, dogs out of wolves, corn out of wild maize because cows and dogs and corn are much more convenient for people.  Selective breeding created new species.  That dogs came from wolves, etc., is overwhelmingly evident from genetic analysis -- as is the fact that we share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

Species change based on reproductive pressures.  That's observable.  Any gardener knows this.  To me this is such a "Duh!" statement that anyone who denies the existence and efficacy of evolution must either:

A.) be talking about something else, and confusing the meaning of the word (deliberately or not); or
B.) have blinders on -- again, deliberately or not.

I am so baffled that people waste time arguing about this that my brain genuinely cannot process it.  Have they never looked at fossils?  Botanical gardens?  The Westminster Dog Show?

Am I missing something here?  Why does this discussion happen?