The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft

Did you know that it may take only one mutation in a certain hight level gene to cause a finch to grow a long pointy beak instead of a stout one? Reading this article on evo-devo might help you understand how. Exactly! Sense, that is what this whole thing hinges on. Or rather, senselessness.Most animal species without eyes live in environments where there is no light. It would indeed be senseless to develop them because the cost of maintaining them is too high in relation to the negligible benefits they might bestow on the creature. But creatures with eyes live in environments where there is light. In those circumstances it would be senseless not to develop eyes, because of the great advantage they give creatures that have them, an advantage which definitely outweighs the cost this time.But however senseless developing eyes may seem (or not developing them, as the case may be), it should really have no bearing on our perspective on evolution, because evolution does not proceed in a sensible way. It is a mindless process of stunning simplicity, with equally stunning results. But above all, it's a process in which whatever happens, just happens. There are no goals, no plans, and no foresights.Those are just things we humans tend to look for all the time, because that is how we operate. This has long been our handicap in trying to understand how living nature came to be so diverse. If you look for a sensible explanation, by which I mean an explanation for perceived meaningfulness, you tend to go overboard on intricacy, and you end up with an explanation that's more inexplicable (e.g. God) than that which you want to explain.But if you, like Darwin, come to understand that what is perceived as very meaningful may in fact be totally devoid of meaning, then you may stumble on a simpler explanation. And the theory of evolution is actually so simple a theory that it can be expressed in just one or two sentences, in plain language. That fact alone, its simplicity, lends the Darwinian explanation a strong sense of veracity if you compare it to the alternatives.And then there's the small matter of a 150 years' worth of physical scientific evidence of course.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

But who says mutations have no cause? The fact that something is random doesn't necessarily preclude a cause. If you threw a die, and you were diabolically clever, you might be able to calculate exactly what jumbles, collisions, forces of gravity and elasticity and whatnot, cause it to show the face it eventually does. But if you did it a million times, each time knowing the exact causes, you would still conclude, from the distribution of the results, randomness.In the same way, a cosmic ray might be the cause of a mutation in a chromosome, but from the point of view of evolution, it would be a random event. Caused, but still random. Adaptation is only adaptation after the fact. Whatever can't cope with the environment for one reason or another goes extinct, and whatever can, is by definition adapted and gets, again by definition, selected. Adaptation is not goal-driven, it is merely following the environment's lead. And they'd be right in thinking so, but then I'd tell them that it wasn't the randomness of mutations that produced the result, but the highly non-randomness of selection. Random mutations are just the raw material that selection builds on.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I'm pretty sure that part of the catholic doctrine in this matter is the pope is always right when he talks about matters that concern catholic doctrines and catholic teachings. But evolution is very observable. And let's not forget the monte carlo method. Just write a simple program using an algo to produce totally random numbers and have a subroutine that only selects the results within certain limits. Random mutations and natural selection. Actually, no. This is why it's called informal logic. The logical fallacy that is argument from authority is only a fallacy when it is.For example, when I was showing college students how to do kinematic problems, sometimes I just gave them the equations and showed them how to use those equations properly. For a lot of these students, the math necessary to derive these equations was several levels higher than what they were at, so I always told them to take my word for it that the equations worked.Not everyone's opinions are equal, and we should all recognize that fact. The argument from authority can be valid when we are dealing with certain situations that we see regularly on this board. You know, when the teenager with his cosmic wisdom shows up and proclaims that quantum mechanics is a pile of bullshit. In such a situation, I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach him a college course on quantum mechanics. I'm just going to say that obviously a lot of very smart people disagree with him and that nowadays we are beginning to have quantum computers proving that QM holds water while he's only got an empty glass. But there are many things we use today that we don't know exactly how they work. I don't know shit about geology. But obviously, I drive a car that has a gasoline engine without demanding to know every detail about how the oil was found and how it got from there to my gas tank.I don't know much about genetics, but obviously I believe in genetic disorders and such. I'm not going to demand to know everything about genetics to believe that my losing my hair (goddamn male pattern baldness) is an inhereted trait.So you see, there are a lot of complicated things in the world that are over our heads. Just because I don't know geology or genetics doesn't mean I can proclaim that they're a bunch of dumbasses by asking them really stupid questions thinking I've stumped their entire fields of science. You misunderstand me. Theologians and other people of faith can either keep up-to-date with science or not. I don't really care. What i do care is people sharing their opinions about things they don't understand as if they have the authority to speak on it. This is why I use the argument from authority. I'm a musician who happens to have perfect pitch, or something very close to it anyway, when I hear certain notes or certain chords and you want to know what they are, I'll tell you what they are and to take my word for it. I'll even play it back for you. Now, if a note is played and you have to say what it is, would you trust the person with a really good relative to perfect pitch or would you trust a person who's tone deaf?This is what I see in this debate. All the people who spend their entire careers researching and thinking about so-and-so field say one thing about so-and-so and then all the peole who are preachers, pastors, housewives, etc. who spend all their lives talking to god rather than learning about so-and-so want their opinion about so-and-so to count more than the first group of people. It just boggles my mind that people actually trust their local preachers on science more than university professors and scientists.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This is really off topic here, but the point was that the Pope can not make an infallible judgement of science itself. He can simply look at evolution and give an informed opinion about whether it poses a problem to what is considered revealed doctrine. While some people trust his authority, there are almost as many who will claim he has no authority because he disagrees with their wonderful wisdom. Personally I prefer to make up my own mind, and I can't do that without knowing what the hell is going on. It is true that we all rely somewhat on the observations and knowledge of specialists. What I am suggesting is that the only way to stop ignorance, is through education. See, some Christians will trust their own pastor, for the same reason. They assume he has the 'credentials' to sort things out. Just because the Pope agrees with science doesn't mean the principle is any different. The Pope is not a science expert, he is a doctrine expert, and he effectually got 'lucky' when a careful examination of doctrine did not necessarily exclude evolution. It doesn't mean there were no concessions made in the interpretation. One might call that a cop-out, or a give and take. Many Christians aren't willing to do that. They are not willing to put what they have decided is a God-given interpretation, up to any test at all. These people need more than a science course, and more than an authority figure telling them what to think. Sure, but that's not really what we are dealing with. It is more like a person with an illness, who hears two conflicting opinions, both from 'authority'. They have a vested interest in finding which is the correct diagnosis. I can't listen to the Pope's diagnosis and take it as correct just because I have my mind made up that he is going to be correct. That is what would be faulty, circular logic. I believe in the Pope's inspiration, so therefore evolution must be true? Nah. Taz, people of faith in this day and age either must keep up with science, or ignore it and continue making statements about the age of the earth based on the Bible alone. Science is not interested in what religion says, and the understanding needs to happen on the part of exactly the pastors and preachers. People trust their preachers on religion. They have no reason not to, because most American Christians come from a long history of thinking that the Bible is the final authority, it interprets itself, and anyone who has spent as much time studying it as the preachers claim to have, should be an expert. They fail to see that they are really trusting, not the Bible, but an interpretation from authority. There is definitely a need for people to question that authority, even if it is the Pope. The only good thing about the popes is they have been able to change their interpretation in light of discovery. That has nothing to do with being infallible, and actually more to do with being wrong and admitting to it.Theologians need to know what science is saying. If they don't, they have utterly no recourse for discovering whether their own doctrines are true or false. If you have a distorted picture of reality, where is the sense in checking your beliefs against it?As long as there are arguments from two 'authorities', and they conflict, there can be no appeal to anything other than reason. I have never made pronouncements based upon my beliefs, I have simply tried to gain a better understanding. It is more insulting that you would exploit my beliefs by asking me to trust the pope sort of a priori, when you know you wouldn't have done that if he didn't accept evolution. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Interesting. Apparently, while not knowing about evo-devo, the gaps I noticed weren't noticed by myself alone. That's somewhat encouraging?The article pretty much paraphrased my own questions, but of course it opens up many more about how certain genes developed in the first place, even if I know how certain body parts came from them. Just takes the questions down to the level of the minute, and I'd still have to wonder about whether the randomness was caused, planned, foreseen, or otherwise created. Science has the unfortunate effect on me where the more I learn, the MORE perfect it seems. Good stuff tho. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I wasn't going to comment because I guess there wasn't anything to debate about, but then I saw the last comment. If you think that was an insult, I apologize.You see, I tend to keep track of what the "other side" is doing lately. For instance, whenever we have someone that make really rediculous arguments against evolution like using the laws of thermodynamics, instead of spending the energy to tell him the reasons why his arguments are bull, I take the shortcut and point out to him that even the top creationist organizations advice people against using such argument.Same thing here. The pope, and indeed the bulk of the catholic church, have for many years examined the theory and weighed against their beliefs and such. This is a radically different approach to science since the time of Copernicus and Kepler. In other words, they have seen what would happen to them if they ignore the evidence and go on by doctrine only. They've become wiser. They have realized that evolution is such a big part of biological sciences today that without it virtually all of the modern biological sciences would make no sense at all. Now, whether they actually believe it or not I don't know. What I do know is if they don't accept evolution, the church will pretty soon be ridiculed for having such a backward view of reality.The point is even among the rankings of the catholic church, there are a lot of smart and well educated people who have looked at this "issue" a lot longer than you have, and even they have to agree that they have no argument (valid ones anyway) against evolution.You seem to be under the impression that the belief in evolution is one based on popularity. While I am not a biologist and thus have not observed biological evolution, I have observed "random mutations" coupled with "natural selection" directly that have resulted in wonders. I've solved many mathematical and physical systems using just random figures and selections of results. Anyone who knows anything about math, physics, and a little computer programming should be able to demonstrate how simple the concept really is.Which brings me to my next point. You have repeated many times that you just can't see how something such as the eye could develop to benefit the organism. What I have been trying to say... I guess I've been beating around the bushes... is that you can't just understand these things until you have some rudimentary understanding of certain things in this world. For me, I've been trained in a field of science that have allowed me to grasp evolution and the mechanisms involve. This is why I keep recommending you learn more about the monte carlo method. You have to start somewhere. You can't just come out of no where and want people to tell you these things that would make sense to you. We don't know where to start!But going back to the church, because they have looked into this matter for a long long time, they've realized that there isn't much real argument against evolution. If you haven't the will to learn the rudimentary stuff first, then perhaps you should just take the church's word for it?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Well, the assumption that I have either a lack of will or lack of capacity for 'getting it' and should thus fall back on belief, is what was insulting, but I don't care all that much.I am just arguing with the idea that stupid people should fall back on any authority, because most of them will go to the Creation Museum rather than listen to the pope. Either that, or they will go to the scientists, which isn't going to help them sort out the theological implications they may associate with evolutionary theory. There is really no good interdisciplinary? mediating authority between science and religion. It's what you might call a relatively new field of study, and many denoms as they are preached today will simply have to crash and burn. It's a little more complicated than just teaching science, and luckily, we do have these forums for the folks who have the will and the capacity to bridge gaps. No one is going to do it for us. This is my life, and my beliefs, and I could care less what anyone says about something if I don't know what they are talking about.

We all are learning. I think the friction in these types of discussions inevitably arises not because of one's beliefs but how they are presented. When discussing or debating topics related to the specifics of a scientific theory you cannot stray from the methods employed by science. Science by defintion employs a specific method of inquiry and relies on observations to establish facts about the world. Interjecting personal beliefs into such discussions is kind of like bringing a knife to a gun fight...you won't last very long.I am not implying one's beliefs are not worth addressing. They certainly are. But you need to use the right tools for the job. Trying to measure or observe things that cannot be measured or observed is not science. By defintion many of the ideas proposed by proponents of evolution cannot be measured or even tested using the methods employed by science. They are not scientific questions and fall under the domain of theology or philosophy.One can certainly add a theory that proposes a new mechanism for change within evolution. In order for a scientist to even pay attention to it however it must be testable using the tools available. For example stating divine iinfluence or design is part of the process of evolution really doesn't add anything that offers specifics open to discussion. It is a dead end and simply a statement. At what point for instance did a designer decide to play around with making genes for an eye? Was the designer passive or active? One needs to present something specific that can at least be a starting point for inquiry.In the end the friction and misconceptions that result from such bare statements cause people to get frustrated and the argument ends up going nowhere. The questions you presented are actually good questions worth discussing. Within these types of discussions there simply is not a lot to work with by stating one holds a belief.

Neat, but that's kind of my point. I was asking questions because I wanted to know the answers, not because I want to know that so and so the second is fine with them. If I ever found a reason to question the Pope's authority, I would have gained zero knowledge to use for myself by simply trusting him.