• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

RiverDad said:
Ask the liberal if he believes that evolution has been working on human intelligence and varies by race. Then, all of a sudden, evolution is evil and an appeal to mysticism is launched in that it is stated that evolution isn't operable in humans from the neck up. That's the equivalent of being a little bit pregnant..
Click to expand...

Race is a social construct. You see, there are certainly distinct ethnographic groups within the human population, but there are so many of them as to be useless. For example, there are hundreds of distinct genetic populations of humans (as indicated both by allele frequencies and unique microsatellite DNA sequences) in Africa alone. E.g. "North Cameroonian" is a distinct genetic population.

So you see, the modern racist has a problem presented by evolutionary biology: there is no real genetic basis for "race" other than a few very visible, yet rather biologically inconsequential gene variants, such as those for MC1R, which is largely responsible for melanin production.

The genetics are clear: either there are hundreds of races, or there is just one. The rest is sociology, something I can't add to a discussion about. To categorize into the groups black, white, Asian, etc... is a vast oversimplification of the matter - nevermind the fact that just a few generations of interbreeding can make a new population entirely!
 
ric27 said:
So, a lightning bolt struck a pool of chemicals and it came to life and turned into an amoeba and eventually into you?
Click to expand...

Obviously, you have confused evolution theory with abiogenesis theory. Don't you feel silly?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
[/SIZE]

Read more: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy' - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com


I have already contributed to his campaign once, and this makes me want to send the guy another check. However, since reason and sanity are not virtues Republican Primary Voters want in a candidate this year, I don't think this will help him out any.
Click to expand...

The more I read about Huntsman, the more I like him. Unfortunately, he won't appeal the the "base" because far too many people in "the base" are under the asinine belief that one has to denounce science in order to be conservative.
 
"Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this... "


1012_teaching_evolution.jpg

in the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!

So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!"
 
The Barbarian said:
Just another waste of a thread for a liberal to attack religion, nothing more nothing less.

Tell what does a person belief in evolution have to do with solving the crisis we are in?
Click to expand...

Everything. When people feel that they can choose to "believe" things that are demonstrably untrue, that threatens the entire basis of rational governance. I may not "believe" in gravity, but s*** still falls, just like even if you don't "believe" in evolution, the flu virus (and every living organism) is still doing it.

It's about understanding science, and what science can tell us. It's about rationality, and the triumph of reason and objectivity over a demon-haunted world.
 
rocket88 said:
Maybe, maybe not. Evolution is a theory that has yet to be proved or disproved.
Click to expand...

Like gravity? There is no such thing as 100% certainty outside of theoretical mathematics.
 
ric27 said:
But evolution cannot explain the development of extremely complex and specialized body parts that serve no purpose until they actually reach their final configuration.
Click to expand...

You're right - unfortunately for your assertion, no example of truly irreducible complexity that does not confer some advantage has ever been described. That's one of the two findings that could immediately destroy evolution theory - true irreducible complexity or an anachronistic fossil... like a Precambrian rabbit or something. So far exactly 0 have been described, and it's not for a lack of trying.
 
digsbe said:
I applaud Perry for putting evolution in it's place. It's an unproven theory and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Theories cannot be proven. As a matter of fact, the idea of "proof" is meaningless outside of mathematics. Theories are simply the most likely explanation of a given set of facts and observations, based on measurements and the resilience of falsifiable hypotheses.

Got one of those?
 
ksu_aviator said:
The thing about evolution is that it is a theory. We have no proof in the fossil record that amoebas lead to humans. In fact, nearly every animal just appeared...when you look at the fossil record. So, either fossils were not possible for a period of time, or creationism wins a point.

p.s....this does not mean that micro evolution is not scientific fact...just macro evolution.
Click to expand...

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science. "Just a theory" indeed... hundreds of related yet independent hypotheses supported by centuries of observation and controlled experimentation.

We do have proof that the ancestors of amoebas led to both amoebas and humans. As a matter of fact, you are FAR more similar to an amoeba than the prokaryotes! Hell, we didn't even diverge until after the endosymbiosis of mitochondria - and that was less than 2 billion years ago. Molecular genetics is a fun topic.

As for gaps in the fossil record:
1. Evolution theory is completely justified by means of other evidence (molecular phylogeny, embryology, biogeography, etc.) without the requirement of any fossil evidence. It is the icing on the evidence cake.
2. Fossils are rare, occurring only under rather rare conditions - and usually not preserving soft tissues.
3. The punctuated equilibrium model describes well how a population in which a spontaneous advantageous mutant allele arises can quickly change morphologically.
4. If there is one gap... say a "missing link" (terribly misleading term, but alas) between species A and B, that is one gap. After having found a transitional form between A and B however, there are now twice as many "gaps" as before, even though much more is known about the evolutionary relationship between the two species. The more fossils discovered, the more gaps there must logically be between them.

And finally - what the heck is the difference between micro and macro evolution? I mean c'mon - what's your definition of a "species" anyway?
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The more I read about Huntsman, the more I like him. Unfortunately, he won't appeal the the "base" because far too many people in "the base" are under the asinine belief that one has to denounce science in order to be conservative.
Click to expand...

No, he won't appeal to the "base" because he's an unashamed moderate across the board in an election where people are looking for a conservative.
 
Dav said:
No, he won't appeal to the "base" because he's an unashamed moderate across the board in an election where people are looking for a conservative.
Click to expand...

You mean conservatives are looking for an ultra conservative. There are no classic, Reagan era conservatives running.
 
Hatuey said:
I always find it awkward that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is complete support of evolution and yet evolution seems unproven to the largely religious classes. However, when you ask them to prove the existence of their mythical fairy in the sky, they can't even provide a simple example of its work through anything but a non-sequitur. Maybe some tools left behind by the creator, er "designer"? Maybe a giant monkey wrench? Some planet sized blueprints? Anything?
Click to expand...

Right - or even a historical reference to something that could only be discovered later... like if Moses came down from the mountain and said the ratio of circumference to diameter is irrational... then he'd have some cred.
 
RiverDad said:
If you're setting out to school someone, here's a hint, know what the **** you're talking about. Evolutionary effects are seen at all levels of life, from the gene, to the individual, to the localized population group, up to species. Do you imagine that a mutation spontaneously arises in every animal belonging to a species?
Click to expand...

It pains me to admit it... but you are so right about this one.
 
AdamT said:
No, not really. There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, and therefore no accepted test for it.
Click to expand...

As with religious creationists, you liberal creationists trot out objections that take the same form - definitional hoop-jumping. Go look in the locked thread on "Are you smarter than the Obama" and your questions will be answered.

rathi said:
Psychometrics are at the squishy end of the soft sciences. In real biology land, there is no overall standard for measuring intelligence in humans.
Click to expand...

Why can't liberals learn from the mistakes made by The Obama. If you want to object to something make damn sure you know what you're talking about because if you telegraph that you're bluffing you can be damn sure that someone is going to call you on your asshattery.

Nature Reviews: Neuroscience


  • MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51;
  • Genetic modelling has shown that g and grey matter volumes depend on the same set of genes (the genetic correlation is about 0.25);
  • g is significantly linked to differences in the volume of frontal grey matter, which were determined primarily by genetic factors;
  • The volume of frontal grey matter had additional predictive validity for g even after the predictive effect of total brain volume was factored out;
  • The linkage between volume of grey matter and g is mediated by a common set of genes;
  • Neural activity in several areas, measured by a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, was greater during high-g than low-g tasks;
  • Studies using electroencephalograms and event-related potentials indicate that the speed and reliability of neural transmission are related to higher intelligence;
  • Monozygotic twins raised separately following adoption show a correlation of 0.72 for intelligence; that is, one twin’s intelligence strongly predicts the other’s, despite their different rearing environments;
  • For 48 identical twin pairs separated in early infancy and reared apart, Bouchard et al. found remarkably high between-twin correlations for verbal scores on the WAIS (0.64) and for the first principal component of special mental abilities (0.78);
  • Psychometric g has been shown to be highly heritable in many studies, even more so than specific cognitive abilities (h2 = 0.6–0.8);

Simple enough to program the computer to look for skin color genes. That hardly makes race an objective genetic definition.
Click to expand...

Please stop arguing strawman. Did I write that they programed a search parameter for skin color genes? Did I? If I didn't write that, then you pulling this **** out of your ass and passing it around as a refutation completely fails.
 
AdamT said:
Do you just make this stuff out of your head? Climate models are always run backwards and forwards to correlate them with historical, known climate patterns. They aren't *just* run against other computer models, although they certainly do compare them. The objective is to continually improve the modeling.
Click to expand...

Yes... but I must admit the real problem here is not one that can be fixed. There's no way to have a truly controlled Earth climate system to compare experiments to, since we've only got one. So... we have to settle for models which are... well models.
 
Councilman said:
You are part of the group that promotes the HOAX I see. You are just plain wrong and want to continue the HOAX.
Click to expand...

May I ask why it is always a HOAX and not just a hoax? Is it just that HOAXY? or is it some kind of acronym?
 
AdamT said:
Actually it's not an inflated number at all. It was the result of a survey sent out to more than 3000 earth scientists: 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of sympathy for HS science teachers. Apparently it takes a lot more time that they're given to instill into the minds of their students a basic knowledge of how science works and instead they're tasked with trying to teach science facts which the students are having difficulty anchoring into a cohesive framework.

You are a classic example of how science education has failed in America. One of the most fundamental attributes of the scientific method is that SCIENCE IS NOT DETERMINED BY A VOTE OF POPULARITY. You trotting out poll numbers means jack ****.
 
nijato said:
Yes... but I must admit the real problem here is not one that can be fixed. There's no way to have a truly controlled Earth climate system to compare experiments to, since we've only got one. So... we have to settle for models which are... well models.
Click to expand...

Run a model. Make a prediction with a long enough time factor. Lock it away. Come back 30 years later and see how well the model worked.

Every time a scientist declares GCM to be effective and we find that a new process is either discovered or specified in greater detail, then logically we can conclude that previous GCM that were said to be bulletproof, were in fact, not bulletproof.
 
RiverDad said:
[*]Monozygotic twins raised separately following adoption show a correlation of 0.72 for intelligence; that is, one twin’s intelligence strongly predicts the other’s, despite their different rearing environments;
[*]Psychometric g has been shown to be highly heritable in many studies, even more so than specific cognitive abilities (h2 = 0.6–0.8);
[/LIST]
Click to expand...
Those are solid correlations indeed, and certainly point to a strong genetic influence over g. I'm not so clear about exactly what g is, but I assume it's some standard measure of intelligence - point granted.

Clearly, intelligence has a high heritability. But... to tie that to race in the traditional sense is still meaningless because of the disparate genetic populations that would be categorized together as single "races."
 
Tucker Case said:
So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
Click to expand...

Science Damn You!

My shtick is posting relevant south park references!
 
RiverDad said:
Run a model. Make a prediction with a long enough time factor. Lock it away. Come back 30 years later and see how well the model worked.

Every time a scientist declares GCM to be effective and we find that a new process is either discovered or specified in greater detail, then logically we can conclude that previous GCM that were said to be bulletproof, were in fact, not bulletproof.
Click to expand...

Surely you grant that the models become better predictors as they assimilate more data, refine values for constants, gain higher resolution, and develop newer systems of equations? At some point, do the models then become adequately predictive to direct policy? I believe they have already.
 
RiverDad said:
I have a lot of sympathy for HS science teachers. Apparently it takes a lot more time that they're given to instill into the minds of their students a basic knowledge of how science works
Click to expand...

you have no idea, lol.

RiverDad said:
and instead they're tasked with trying to teach science facts which the students are having difficulty anchoring into a cohesive framework.
Click to expand...

The standardized test results of my students will be 50% of my performance evaluation this year. You better believe there will be lots of memorization, since a large portion of the test items are simple recall.

RiverDad said:
You are a classic example of how science education has failed in America. One of the most fundamental attributes of the scientific method is that SCIENCE IS NOT DETERMINED BY A VOTE OF POPULARITY. You trotting out poll numbers means jack ****.
Click to expand...

so true... and that's one of the reasons people disrespect scientific findings as if it were just another "opinion." - Sorry AT, but he has a point.
 
RiverDad said:
I have a lot of sympathy for HS science teachers. Apparently it takes a lot more time that they're given to instill into the minds of their students a basic knowledge of how science works and instead they're tasked with trying to teach science facts which the students are having difficulty anchoring into a cohesive framework.

You are a classic example of how science education has failed in America. One of the most fundamental attributes of the scientific method is that SCIENCE IS NOT DETERMINED BY A VOTE OF POPULARITY. You trotting out poll numbers means jack ****.
Click to expand...

Well, that's all very pithy and as usual, not quite right. On the one hand it's certainly true that scientific discoveries are made by individuals, but on the other hand, it is ultimately a consensus of the scientific community that determines whether a purported discovery is valid or a crock of sh*t. Copernicus discovered that the the earth wasn't the center of the universe, but we might not know it if Galileo hadn't championed his discovery and convinced the scientific community that Copernicus was right.

Certainly science is all about challenging accepted wisdom, and that is a necessary part of discovery. IF you are actually a scientist with the advanced training required to rationally challenge the accepted wisdom. But it is the height of folly for someone who is not so trained (you or I, for instance) to imagine that we can know better than the vast majority of experts who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit. In fact the modern day climate change deniers, who oppose the science on political and/or religious grounds, very much mirror the flat earthers who opposed the heliocentric theory of the galaxy in Galileo's time.
 
AdamT said:
That is an absurd statement and you wouldn't have made it if you had even a casual understanding of the subject.

[clipped balance of post]
Click to expand...

Its not an absurd statement as it is quite predictable as very, very few Regressives have even a casual understanding of the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom