Republicans Against Science

[Flopper]

Until we see the actual first organism that started evolution then it is a theory.

You won't believe in God unless you see him, likewise I won't believe in evolution unless I see "Organism #1".

Have you ever hear of a virus?

Yes.. And according to scientific theory and the "tree of life" as science draws it -- Viruses are NOT primordial relatives for the human clan. THey are one of the earliest branches AWAY from the lines of ascendency to apes and man.

Life on Earth

International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses accepted viruses as species in 1991. Viruses evolve by the same means as humans and other species, plus they use tricks such as stealing genetic code from other viruses.

We also see evolution in other microorganism, however it's much faster than more advanced species. Most microorganisms can reproduce rapidly and microbes such as bacteria can also freely exchange genes by conjugation, transformation and transduction between widely-divergent species. This horizontal gene transfer, coupled with a high mutation rate and many other means of genetic variation, allows microorganisms to swiftly evolve (via natural selection) to survive in new environments and respond to environmental stresses. This rapid evolution is important in medicine, as it has led to the recent development of 'super-bugs' — pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to modern antibiotics.

It's interesting that so many people are quick to reject the basic theory, however they certainly don't reject products of that theory.

 

[Avatar4321]

And it's exactly for saying that false bullcrap that he isn't a serious contender for the nomination.

The right likes people who are going to be honest and who are going to support the positions, not run against them and libel them.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I wonder how many conservatives know what a Hypothesis is.

I'm thinking not many.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad…

Agreed.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

Indeed, both.

But it is the perfect – and predictable – play for the Base – the evidence of that is in this very thread.

 

[Flopper]

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad…

Agreed.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

Indeed, both.

But it is the perfect – and predictable – play for the Base – the evidence of that is in this very thread.

Unfortunately the Republican candidate has nothing to lose by taking such as a position. Scientist don't vote Republican. The evangelicals see science as a threat. The fiscal conservatives are one trick pony, whose only goal is to reduce the size of government. Science is immaterial.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unfortunately the Republican candidate has nothing to lose by taking such as a position. Scientist don't vote Republican. The evangelicals see science as a threat. The fiscal conservatives are one trick pony, whose only goal is to reduce the size of government. Science is immaterial.

What is it like in this fantasy world where you can claim a group of people think science is a threat when that's completely false. Science is amoral.

It's the people who want to misuse science that are the problems. You know, the ones who want to claim "Science" says something that it doesn't say.

I've found that people who say they rely on science have no clue what science actually is. I've also found that those people are usually lying to themselves what science is saying and refusing to change their lives to live by it.

 

[daveman]

Republicans say they are FOR science and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

Leftists say they are intelligent and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

 

[Seawytch]

The candidate is either pandering to political and economic interests or putting personal and religious beliefs ahead of scientific evidence. In either case, it's pretty damn scary.

Indeed it is...and likely a little of both.

 

[RDD_1210]

Unfortunately the Republican candidate has nothing to lose by taking such as a position. Scientist don't vote Republican. The evangelicals see science as a threat. The fiscal conservatives are one trick pony, whose only goal is to reduce the size of government. Science is immaterial.

What is it like in this fantasy world where you can claim a group of people think science is a threat when that's completely false. Science is amoral.

It's the people who want to misuse science that are the problems. You know, the ones who want to claim "Science" says something that it doesn't say.

I've found that people who say they rely on science have no clue what science actually is. I've also found that those people are usually lying to themselves what science is saying and refusing to change their lives to live by it.

And I've found people who rely on faith and reject science have no clue what critical thinking is all about.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing

Until we see the actual first organism that started evolution then it is a theory.

You won't believe in God unless you see him, likewise I won't believe in evolution unless I see "Organism #1".

You ever seen a dinosaur?

Just the fossils. How they evolved and from what is mere speculation.

 

[daveman]

Unfortunately the Republican candidate has nothing to lose by taking such as a position. Scientist don't vote Republican. The evangelicals see science as a threat. The fiscal conservatives are one trick pony, whose only goal is to reduce the size of government. Science is immaterial.

What is it like in this fantasy world where you can claim a group of people think science is a threat when that's completely false. Science is amoral.

It's the people who want to misuse science that are the problems. You know, the ones who want to claim "Science" says something that it doesn't say.

I've found that people who say they rely on science have no clue what science actually is. I've also found that those people are usually lying to themselves what science is saying and refusing to change their lives to live by it.

And I've found people who rely on faith and reject science have no clue what critical thinking is all about.

You do know that mindlessly repeating the correct opinions isn't critical thought, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html

Can you show me one single repeatable laboratory experiment that holds all variable constant but for a 100ppm increase in CO2 and gets ANY of the results set forth by the Death Worshiping Cult known as "ManMade Global Warning"?

 

[RDD_1210]

Until we see the actual first organism that started evolution then it is a theory.

You won't believe in God unless you see him, likewise I won't believe in evolution unless I see "Organism #1".

You ever seen a dinosaur?

Just the fossils. How they evolved and from what is mere speculation.

Ignorance seems to be all the rage this year.

 

[konradv]

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.

You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing

Sentience-out-of-protoplasm evolution is, by its very definition, still just a theory...That is a semantic fact.

Now, I believe that you were saying something about someone who doesn't know jack shit about the topic they are discussing?

There's no such thing in the scientific community as "just a theory". If you're going to make the pretense of discussing science, at least do it in the terms of the field. A theory is not to be taken lightly, as you would have us believe, and it's incumbent on YOU to prove it false. If it's at all accepted by the majority of scientists, the "proof" has already been made and a mere dismissal by skeptics means nothing. As you say, it IS semantics. You just happen to be on the wrong side of the way the word is understood.

 

[Vel]

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html

Maybe someone should mention to Krugman that it's called Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If they could prove it accurate it would be called Darwin's Law of Evolution.

As to global warming... In the seventies the scientific community's "consensus" was that the earth was cooling and that we were heading into a new Ice Age.

Please also recall that at one time in history, the best educated people on the planet thought the earth was flat.

 

[Oddball]

You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing

Sentience-out-of-protoplasm evolution is, by its very definition, still just a theory...That is a semantic fact.

Now, I believe that you were saying something about someone who doesn't know jack shit about the topic they are discussing?

There's no such thing in the scientific community as "just a theory". If you're going to make the pretense of discussing science, at least do it in the terms of the field. A theory is not to be taken lightly, as you would have us believe, and it's incumbent on YOU to prove it false. If it's at all accepted by the majority of scientists, the "proof" has already been made and a mere dismissal by skeptics means nothing. As you say, it IS semantics. You just happen to be on the wrong side of the way the word is understood.

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd say a theory that can't explain how life formed where there was no life has a pretty big frickin' hole in it.

Evolution does not address the origin of life, only the evolution of life . Abiogenesis does.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we are to reject scientific theory because it does not answer all questions on the subject, then in addition to Global Warming, and Evolution we would have to add Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Plate Techtonics, and many others. Everyday we add new knowledge. Someday we may have a theory of the origin of life that is widely accepted in the scientific community.

Nice that you recognize the lack of rigid certainty in ANY of those theories -- including Einsteins'. Someday -- we may understand the forces and conditions that selected all those mutations to advance the tree of life.. Right now -- we can't even accurately draw it. I call that a "serious gap".

Not only doesn't evolution address the ORIGIN of life. But you cannot state that evolution was the SOLE FORCE behind species advancement unless you can reconstruct all the environmental conditions that surrounded each act of "natural selection". So one might say that Darwin explains "the evolution of life" ONLY if you're willing to have FAITH in future science advancements. And I thought FAITH was the evil you were here to ridicule...

The left needs to STOP using science as a political weapon, and learn to appreciate the process and humility it actually takes to study and practice it...

 

[Avatar4321]

Republicans say they are FOR science and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

Leftists say they are intelligent and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

I've found that if you are really intelligent, you don't have to announce your intellectual superiority to the world. If you are, you are. Your words and actions support it.

 

[Avatar4321]

And I've found people who rely on faith and reject science have no clue what critical thinking is all about.

And who exactly rejects science?

Science is a method of observation. Not some monolithic belief system. Faith and science are in no way incompatible.

Those who pretend they are incompatible are lying to themselves.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing

Until we see the actual first organism that started evolution then it is a theory.

You won't believe in God unless you see him, likewise I won't believe in evolution unless I see "Organism #1".

Just like a supreme being and after life are theories.

Not theories. Evolution is just a fabrication used as an excuse by unbelievers to try and justify their position.