How To Define "Scientist"?

[PoliticalChic]

We've seen evolutionary changes in lizards introduced to a new habitat.

There's also the experiment of a Soviet geneticist in the middle of the 20th century who bred foxes with the single trait of tameness in mind, and got the surprising result of them looking and behaving like dogs. Ain't biology cool?

I must say, this article certainly supports your thesis.

But it was hardly an example of human-initiated experimentation that can be regularly replicated.

You could, to an extent. If you introduce a new species to a new island and leave it alone it will evolve separately from the host population you took it from. It's a basic method of speciation, via geographic isolation.

You're not going to get the same lizards to evolve the precise same way, but you'll get them to evolve.



Gratzi.

Still, I don't believe that the example represents any the validation of your premise: "Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments."

Well that's a pity, because it does. Would you perhaps like some more examples? Maybe you're a fan of bacteria, my personal favorite is one that Richard Lenski did for over twenty years, centered around E. coli.

Let's see, if you like foxes, here's a link about the experiment the Soviet geneticist I described above did.

Do you like fish? John Endler did an experiment concerning guppy color and cameoflauge in the 1970s. Here's a PBS page that describes his experiment quite well.

I have more if you like, although if you still think this doesn't show evolution in organisms, I'm afraid I have to conclude you don't seem to understand the term 'evolution.'

Nor does it deny the aspects that a religious perspective adds to the theory.
But I did find it interesting.

I'm not sure what religious perspective you could add. Evolution makes no quibbles or qualms concerning religion. It really doesn't have much to do with it.

I referred the E. coli earlier...

Prokaryotes (as their name suggests) refer to cells which do not have a true membrane-bound nucleus. This type of cell includes most bacteria. As E. coli belongs to this category [its genetic material which includes genomic DNA (in the form of single-stranded DNA) and plasmid DNA (small circular DNA molecules in the cytoplasm of the cell) for some strains of E. coli e.g. DH5a] is sequestered in the cytoplasm of the cell in a region known as the nucleoid (rather than a true membrane bound nucleus), we may thus classify E. coli to be a prokaryotic cell.

Read more: Why is E. coli a prokaryotic cell

Domesticaton is the selection of traits that are mutation...rewarding adaptations.

It doesn't refer to the series of chages in nature that have produced the panorama we see today.

I would be happy to accept your explanation of 'evolution' as long as you accept that it is largely based on conjecture and faith...not reproducible research.

Not all work should be expected to be reproducible...especially in an area such as 'evolution'...and this is exactly why faith in a theory is such a large component. And why one can make up pretty much whatever one wishes.

The theory of evolution is incomplete with explaining the origins of the universe, and, therefore, the primordial gases.

 

[Woyzeck]

I must say, this article certainly supports your thesis.

But it was hardly an example of human-initiated experimentation that can be regularly replicated.

You could, to an extent. If you introduce a new species to a new island and leave it alone it will evolve separately from the host population you took it from. It's a basic method of speciation, via geographic isolation.

You're not going to get the same lizards to evolve the precise same way, but you'll get them to evolve.



Gratzi.



Well that's a pity, because it does. Would you perhaps like some more examples? Maybe you're a fan of bacteria, my personal favorite is one that Richard Lenski did for over twenty years, centered around E. coli.

Let's see, if you like foxes, here's a link about the experiment the Soviet geneticist I described above did.

Do you like fish? John Endler did an experiment concerning guppy color and cameoflauge in the 1970s. Here's a PBS page that describes his experiment quite well.

I have more if you like, although if you still think this doesn't show evolution in organisms, I'm afraid I have to conclude you don't seem to understand the term 'evolution.'

Nor does it deny the aspects that a religious perspective adds to the theory.
But I did find it interesting.

I'm not sure what religious perspective you could add. Evolution makes no quibbles or qualms concerning religion. It really doesn't have much to do with it.

I referred the E. coli earlier...

Prokaryotes (as their name suggests) refer to cells which do not have a true membrane-bound nucleus. This type of cell includes most bacteria. As E. coli belongs to this category [its genetic material which includes genomic DNA (in the form of single-stranded DNA) and plasmid DNA (small circular DNA molecules in the cytoplasm of the cell) for some strains of E. coli e.g. DH5a] is sequestered in the cytoplasm of the cell in a region known as the nucleoid (rather than a true membrane bound nucleus), we may thus classify E. coli to be a prokaryotic cell.

Read more: Why is E. coli a prokaryotic cell

That's a shame you wish to dismiss it outright. The experiment is fascinating, and produced some surprising results.

Domesticaton is the selection of traits that are mutation...rewarding adaptations.

It doesn't refer to the series of chages in nature that have produced the panorama we see today.

Domestication is evolution by human selection. Rest assured, domesticated animals underwent evolution to get to where they are. Evolution is defined very broadly as changes in an organism, after all.

I would be happy to accept your explanation of 'evolution' as long as you accept that it is largely based on conjecture and faith...not reproducible research.

Would you please not lie? You're the one who keeps poo-pooing all the experiments I presented. It's not 'faith based', I gave you reproducible research and you gave flimsy reasons for not accepting them. Faith does not enter into the equation here.

Not all work should be expected to be reproducible...especially in an area such as 'evolution'...and this is exactly why faith in a theory is such a large component. And why one can make up pretty much whatever one wishes.

You can reproduce Lenski's experiment if you wish, it's fully reproducable. As is the experiments of Endler (the link I gave you took you through how!), Belyaev, and the one about the lizards. The individual results of evolution will vary (as in, they will evolve and change in different ways), but it will reinforce the fact that evolution occurs.

There really isn't any faith in it. It's all fact and tried and tested experiments here.

The theory of evolution is incomplete with explaining the origins of the universe, and, therefore, the primordial gases.

Oh how cute. You think that actually pertains to the theory of evolution. You kids say the silliest things! You think biology, specifically evolution, should say something about cosmology!

Seriously, evolution makes no claims pertaining to how the universe began, or even how life started. Those are separate fields.

 

[rdean]

Republicans need to have "scientist" defined. One word among many others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans need to have "scientist" defined. One word among many others.

Definitions help people communicate intelligently. If everyone was like you and just made up definitions whenever they wanted, no one would be able to communicate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans need to have "scientist" defined. One word among many others.

What an excellent coda for this thread!

"Some of our Left-leaning friends love to claim that their side is the one allied with science, and imply that such cannot be wrong.
And the corollary…the Right is based on ignorance and anti-science. After all, only “6% of scientists are Republicans."


Talk about the alpha to the omega!

 

[percysunshine]

"Some of our Left-leaning friends love to claim that their side is the one allied with science"

Of course, some of our left-leaning friends are pathologic liars. So they have inadvertantly settled the issue.

 

[editec]

A scientist is one who explores reality without preconceptions about what will be discovered.

That obviously is not to say that they will never be wrong, merely that they are not convinced that they are right based on their own presumptions.

 

[percysunshine]

A scientist is one who explores reality without preconceptions about what will be discovered.

That obviously is not to say that they will never be wrong, merely that they are not convinced that they are right based on their own presumptions.

True. It is an empirical observation based epistimology that is independent of religious belief systems like Creationism and Global warminism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A scientist is one who explores reality without preconceptions about what will be discovered.

That obviously is not to say that they will never be wrong, merely that they are not convinced that they are right based on their own presumptions.

Not the point, Techster...
...the point is the numbers of 'scientists' who lie and/or cheat.


"How common is scientific fraud? Nobody really knows. Defenders of science's purity often argue that such fraud is very rare, the product of a tiny number of "bad apples." But I doubt that. My suspicion is that the cases of fraud that are exposed are just the tip of the iceberg."

A recent meta-analysis of those surveys reveals that, on average, about 2% of scientists admitted to fabricating or falsifying data, and 14% said that they had personal evidence of such behavior in one or more of their colleagues.[3] The percentage admitting to fraud was highest among scientists doing pharmaceutical, clinical, and other medical research, which either means that researchers in those fields fabricate lab data more often or lie less often on questionnaires than do researchers in other fields.

As the author of the meta-analysis, Daniele Fanelli, points out, the 2% figure is the lowest possible estimate of the percentage of scientists who have deliberately falsified data. No respondents would say that they had behaved fraudulently if they hadn't, but many, even on an anonymous questionnaire, might be expected to lie in the opposite direction. The meta-analysis also revealed that a full third of the respondents to the surveys admitted to more subtle forms of scientific cheating, such as failing to report data that contradicted their theories or dropping data points from analyses because of a "gut feeling" that they were inaccurate.
Cheating in Science, Part I: The Tragic Story of a Young Man

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Fact is: When money or fame is on the line, people cheat. Not just scientists, but all people. We can document businessmen, politicians, soldiers, teachers, religious leaders, and yes, Scientists who have lied when there's money on the line. The fact that there are still "Scientists" that debate the link between lung cancer and smoking is a testimony to the sheer amount of money available if your result supports certain goals.

Hell, we're seeing this in history with the growth the cottage industry of "Historians" willing to support monsters or trash heroes just to score with the right political crowd and sell books.

The biggest issue I've heard of in science as far as cheating is related to the Chinese right now, who are heavily plagiarizing the results of their peers for promotion.

Right now the best defense against this remains the Peer Review system. Most of the errors, lies, and outright fabrications in grant proposals are found once the results are submitted for Peer Review. Ditto the plagiarizing issue. It isn't perfect, but it remains the best we have.

I'm curious though what you see the solution as being? Defund scientific research? Keep in mind we won WWII and the Cold War thanks to the massive amounts of money pumped into scientific research. We've saved millions of lives every year thanks the medical research we've pumped into Biology, Genetics, and Chemistry and the applications to medical treatments. We save literally thousands of lives and WIN WARS based on our research into accurate weather prediction. So is the solution to really let a few bad apples win out and ruin it for everyone?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fact is: When money or fame is on the line, people cheat. Not just scientists, but all people. We can document businessmen, politicians, soldiers, teachers, religious leaders, and yes, Scientists who have lied when there's money on the line. The fact that there are still "Scientists" that debate the link between lung cancer and smoking is a testimony to the sheer amount of money available if your result supports certain goals.

Hell, we're seeing this in history with the growth the cottage industry of "Historians" willing to support monsters or trash heroes just to score with the right political crowd and sell books.

The biggest issue I've heard of in science as far as cheating is related to the Chinese right now, who are heavily plagiarizing the results of their peers for promotion.

Right now the best defense against this remains the Peer Review system. Most of the errors, lies, and outright fabrications in grant proposals are found once the results are submitted for Peer Review. Ditto the plagiarizing issue. It isn't perfect, but it remains the best we have.

I'm curious though what you see the solution as being? Defund scientific research? Keep in mind we won WWII and the Cold War thanks to the massive amounts of money pumped into scientific research. We've saved millions of lives every year thanks the medical research we've pumped into Biology, Genetics, and Chemistry and the applications to medical treatments. We save literally thousands of lives and WIN WARS based on our research into accurate weather prediction. So is the solution to really let a few bad apples win out and ruin it for everyone?

I'm a conservative, meaning that I agree with Madison (Federalist #51)...we aren't angels, nor will any system of laws or government make us so.

Checks and balances in government, and the peer judgement that you point out.

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

Exxon gave $125,000 for research

US $2.1 billion

EU $3 billion


$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and solar

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute

Most folks don't realize that 'Big Green' or Big Sierra sets the agenda, not Big Oil. Delingpole wrote a book called "Watermelons" (green on the outside but red on the inside) which makes the point the issue is political at its heart.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

Exxon gave $125,000 for research

US $2.1 billion

EU $3 billion


$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and solar

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute

Most folks don't realize that 'Big Green' or Big Sierra sets the agenda, not Big Oil. Delingpole wrote a book called "Watermelons" (green on the outside but red on the inside) which makes the point the issue is political at its heart.

Well, I can certainly see how it has become political at heart. The Environmental folks see this as the "smoking gun" and have staked a lot on it. Economic Concerns stand to lose big time if this becomes the driving policy behind regulation. This has political battle written all over it. And once politics enters the picture, objective truth leaves the picture.

 

[flacaltenn]

From my perspective, we do exactly what we are doing here...spotlight the issues, show the motivations that might increase the temptations...

And have faith that truth will out: as in East Anglia.

That's a good solution. The truth always wins out in the end.

The story I'd like to see written about is where the hell all the money in support of Global Warming Research is coming from. It can't all be public money.

I've said before, I agree that the climate is changing and we're warming up, but the research that shows Mankind is the cause of and source of the problem, or that we can even really solve it, has always been.... fishy. Seems like its more about selling a few more electric cars than an actual pursuit of truth.

And even when a theory is right (Like Evolution) that doesn't stop folks from twisting it to fit their own agendas. The Mechanism for evolution is about as rock solid as any other theory we've ever had in the history of Mankind. But it doesn't really address the origin of Mankind or the Origin of the universe, despite what people may think.

We all HOPE the truth wins out BEFORE any real damage is done.

There's a corollary to the "cheating" aspect of the OP.. I run into this constantly on USMB. And that is partisian objections to scientists acting in defense of industries or interests that the left have deemed undesirable. Not realizing that you cant' just DECLARE said industry guilty and deny them a defense, they build up huge encyclopedic volumes of resumes showing even the vaguest connection of a researcher to a "damned" cause.

Truth is -- usually there are solid scientific arguments to be made for chemical companies, energy discoverers, maybe even fast food establishments. It is NOT fraud, lying or cheating if it is valid scientific work. And it pisses me off no end -- that NOW -- a large fraction of the left is NOT willing to discuss issues when the messenger doesn't vet out as one of their own.

But in a complete act of hypocrisy, WE can't even question the morals, ethics or motives of THEIR govt sponsored messengers. No sir.. Not allowed. How damn convienient. Doesn't it kinda remind you of an official Inquistion rather than free inquiry?

 

[whitehall]

The definition of "scientist" is blurry and muddy enough to include just about everyone in the world including the guy who spits on your windshield and squeegies it off for a dollar.