evolutionary theory wrang footprints

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I could argue that you are just as conditioned to accept anything laid down as scientific - even when gaping holes appear. </div></div>

well you <span style="font-style: italic">could</span>, and I think in a few places you inferred that, but actually you would be <span style="font-style: italic">wrong.</span> It's not enough to just 'say' something, or make a declaration or post up a video with opposing information. You have to prove it. And that is the point of departure. If and when a hole appears, a person rigourously applying the scientific method will, if the data set merits no other possible or plausible conclusion, be agnostic until such time as the matter can be solved. But don't be confused.

I can prove that your premise of how the universe began is not taken to it's logical conclusion, and have done so, by your own admission.

I can prove that man and ape share common ancestry, by showing the genome, hERVs, etc. You can't prove that human and ape do not share ancestry. Simply saying so doesn't make it so.

I don't accept 'anything' scientific, because the very principles of scientific inquiry dictate <span style="font-style: italic">falsifiability</span> and rigorous application of logic.

This is part of the whole scientific method and this is why scientific statements are very different from statements of faith or belief. Statements require PROOF. Logic is actually like math. No real wriggle room, no matter how uncomfortable it's conclusion. 2+2= 4. But in this instance, you are actually recognizing the correct answer is four, but then you are like, but I disagree it is 4, I feel like it is 3.

That's why it is clear that while you adhere to the premise of a creator- which has no logical basis and is in fact irrational- you are too conditioned to recognize this point, and that is why you feel to retreat from your own logical conclusion, or that just by saying something, it's akin to actual evidence.

As for myself, it doesn't matter if there is a creator- but there needs to be evidence to support that. So far, anything that can be said about a creator can also be falsified, and it is, as we have already seen. Positing that the universe began with a creator begs a question which leads us into an absurdity. This does not mean that an equal sign can then be placed between the two premises' conclusions as far as validly reaching that conclusion.

Mutty's video displays this difference admirably, and I'm sure after you watch it you will see what I am saying.

To further explain falsification, and why there is a difference, let's return to evolution for a second.

The prediction which the theory of evolution makes, is that organisms of similar physical appearance, are related in their distant past.

If this is NOT the case, then at the genetic level, there will be NO sign of inheritance between species- no genetic traits will be shared between organisms of different species.

That is how it would be falsified. So NO genetic traits in common = evolution is WRONG.

So when examining the human genome, and comparing it to that of a chimpanzee or monkey, what we find is that yes indeed, we share lots of the same genetic material, which is the prediction if evolution were true. Further support is seen when we compare hERVs, which are genetic scars which insert randomly. We know this is a random insertion because we've observed and tested that.

So to find in both man and ape genome several hERVs can only mean ONE THING- we both got these hERVs from a common ancestor. Evolution would now predict that because of this common genetic material, that the further down the line species broke off from each other, the less related they will be.

And this is, in fact, what we find, and that is why man is closer to chimpanzees than they are to orangutans.

That is why we have actual *proof*, we're not just saying something about evolution for the sake of saying it, or believing it because we want to. What you say has to be falsified, and if it is not, then it can be accepted and used and applied to effect elsewhere- which is why we have things like genetic algorithms in computer science. Now it can be said that because genetic algorithms can be applied and used to measurable effect, evolution must work, because if it did not, neither would genetic algorithms.

[andronian2]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But it is indeed testable, and falsifiable. There are experiments going on today which show exactly that life *could* have formed randomly. Blind chance can indeed produce life, hypothetically.
</div></div>

How does a person do this?
I am very interested to know because once an intelligent person is arranging things you do not have a random event anymore.

My computer processor is basically just a block of silicon and other elements readily found on earth.
Obvously, the processors are manufactured by natural processes but they are never made naturally!
They are made by man manipulating the processes of nature to achieve a desired structure and result.
I cannot expect a valid x86 intel processor to arise due to random application of the forces of nature.
Thus, if I find a x86 processor in the sand I'll assume someone dropped it not that it formed spontaneously out of the earth's elements.

Clearly, life is also very specific about the conditions under which it will arise from inorganic matter.
Despite living on a planet with a proven record of supporting life we have never seen spontaneous life arise.
So any manipulation of natural processes by an experimenter will only illuminate the procedure by which live could have come from inorganic matter.
It will not prove that the same procedure started life on earth and it will not prove that it occurred without direction as it did not even occur without direction during the experiment.

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But it is indeed testable, and falsifiable. There are experiments going on today which show exactly that life *could* have formed randomly. Blind chance can indeed produce life, hypothetically.
</div></div>

How does a person do this?
I am very interested to know because once an intelligent person is arranging things you do not have a random event anymore.

My computer processor is basically just a block of silicon and other elements readily found on earth.
Obvously, the processors are manufactured by natural processes but they are never made naturally!
They are made by man manipulating the processes of nature to achieve a desired structure and result.
I cannot expect a valid x86 intel processor to arise due to random application of the forces of nature.
Thus, if I find a x86 processor in the sand I'll assume someone dropped it not that it formed spontaneously out of the earth's elements.

Clearly, life is also very specific about the conditions under which it will arise from inorganic matter.
Despite living on a planet with a proven record of supporting life we have never seen spontaneous life arise.
So any manipulation of natural processes by an experimenter will only illuminate the procedure by which live could have come from inorganic matter.
It will not prove that the same procedure started life on earth and it will not prove that it occurred without direction as it did not even occur without direction during the experiment.

</div></div>

wow this is so well said

i've been saying this all along; but unfortunately the scientists bou yah will dismiss your statement as untestable

if common sense was sold everyone would have it

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

How does a person do this?
I am very interested to know because once an intelligent person is arranging things you do not have a random event anymore.</div></div>

so you are suggesting one can not experiment with random patterns? or mimic a closed or open natural system with randomness? how do people study weather. measure earthquakes. there are lots and lots of examples of scientists performing studies and experiments in which they play zero part but that of observation.

the issue with this position is it assumes intelligence in the initial condition. that is fallacious.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My computer processor is basically just a block of silicon and other elements readily found on earth.
Obvously, the processors are manufactured by natural processes but they are never made naturally!
They are made by man manipulating the processes of nature to achieve a desired structure and result.
I cannot expect a valid x86 intel processor to arise due to random application of the forces of nature.
Thus, if I find a x86 processor in the sand I'll assume someone dropped it not that it formed spontaneously out of the earth's elements.
</div></div>

this is a variation on the watchmaker argument. case closed long ago on that one my friend. i would go into it but am a little short on time, and you'll forgive me for saying so, it was defeated very early on. even ID has moved past that. it has to do with irreducible complexity and that has been falsified repeatedly, with every biologic structure shown to be reducible.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Clearly, life is also very specific about the conditions under which it will arise from inorganic matter.
Despite living on a planet with a proven record of supporting life we have never seen spontaneous life arise.</div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">sort of. </span>

better to say 'yet'- but lab experiments show how it could happen and are very promising. if life can be formed spontaneously in an experiment your position is sunk a bit.[/b]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So any manipulation of natural processes by an experimenter will only illuminate the procedure by which live could have come from inorganic matter.
It will not prove that the same procedure started life on earth and it will not prove that it occurred without direction as it did not even occur without direction during the experiment.

</div></div>

i think pre-biotic is a better term, because life is formed from organic material.

all an experiment need do is prove the *possibility* and it can go from there. controls can be established to mimic early, pre-biotic conditions. you assume a fallacious position that any observer initiates a bias to intelligence. successful results of our randomized system can then be mapped to observations, and if it fits it can be further tested against what is known. right now, experimentation shows it's possible that pre-biotic conditions could have led to the formation of very simple single celled organisms- which is what is predicted by the Theory of Evolution- and that early environmental pressures can cause natural selection. Also, there is not a lot of evidence that what we observe is dictated by any kind of intelligent initiation- in fact, the opposite.

what you are saying i think is more specifically applicable to quantum mechanics, where a final state result is determined by observation, like in schroedinger's cat.

[andronian2]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

BTW, whether God being timeless makes the universe timeless depends on your definition of universe.

The whole evolution process is sticky for me too:

1)The genetic change has to be tiny because mutations are random.
2)Only a small proportion of these changes will be anything but deleterious (phenylketonuria/haemophilia etc. say hi).
3)A small proportion of small changes give some selection advatage and are passed to the next generation

There are difficulties here apart from the relative improbability of useful mutations;
that's a bit like taking a sledge hammer to each computer you buy in an effort to improve it (you'd quickly be broke).
The other question is why should a small imperceptible step towards having, say, a wing, give any selection advantage when you cannot yet fly?
This is the idea (irreducible complexity) that many bioligical structures are of no use to the organism until they are complete so what is the impetus for completing them in terms of natural selection over countless generations?

Nontheless, we are told that it is 'a fact' that this highly unlikely 'buck-ups' process recurred countless kazillions of times to take life on earth from a single cell (which itself arose by 'buck-up') to man.
Mi no buy it one bit and probably never will.

[andronian2]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

i think pre-biotic is a better term, because life is formed from organic material.

all an experiment need do is prove the *possibility* and it can go from there. controls can be established to mimic early, pre-biotic conditions. you assume a fallacious position that any observer initiates a bias to intelligence. successful results of our randomized system can then be mapped to observations, and if it fits it can be further tested against what is known. right now, experimentation shows it's possible that pre-biotic conditions could have led to the formation of very simple single celled organisms- which is what is predicted by the Theory of Evolution- and that early environmental pressures can cause natural selection. Also, there is not a lot of evidence that what we observe is dictated by any kind of intelligent initiation- in fact, the opposite.

what you are saying i think is more specifically applicable to quantum mechanics, where a final state result is determined by observation, like in schroedinger's cat. </div></div>

How does an experiment prove the possibility of life arising by chance apart from producing life by chance?
How does a human experimenter produce life by chance?

I think you are saying that he can observe conditions that HE BELIEVED existed at the time when life arose.
How does he prove that the specific conditions HE has created in a lab in which life can arise are the same conditions that existed countless aeons ago by chance.

There are certain conditions I BELIEVE existed when an intel processor was manufactured and that belief has a basis in observation.
But my observation of processor being produced in factory conditions is no excuse for me to assert that factory conditions existed in the ground (by chance) if I find a processor buried there.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, whether God being timeless makes the universe timeless depends on your definition of universe.

The whole evolution process is sticky for me too:

1)The genetic change has to be tiny because mutations are random.
</div></div>

andronian- you need to catch up a bit on what the theory states. not all changes are tiny. they can be quite dramatic also.

there is only one definition of universe we need concern ourselves with.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The other question is why should a small imperceptible step towards having, say, a wing, give any selection advantage when you cannot yet fly?
This is the idea (irreducible complexity) that many bioligical structures are of no use to the organism until they are complete so what is the impetus for completing them in terms of natural selection over countless generations?
</div></div>

not all gradual changes are delitrious to the point of extinction. it's the same process for everything. what makes a mouse adapt new color schemes makes a wing, over time. we have several delitrious mutations, and still made it through the grinder.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nontheless, we are told that it is 'a fact' that this highly unlikely 'buck-ups' process recurred countless kazillions of times to take life on earth from a single cell (which itself arose by 'buck-up') to man.
Mi no buy it one bit and probably never will. </div></div>

you do buy it, any time you eat food. or wash your hands to avoid flu.

or if your dna exonerated you from a crime, or proved the guilt of someone who did you injury.

if you are susceptible to hereditary disease, like hypertension or heart disease. then suddenly, evolution is quite real and is reaching out to touch you. at that point you can't say you don't agree with it. your opinion doesn't matter.

you just don't make the connection yet.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There are certain conditions I BELIEVE existed when an intel processor was manufactured and that belief has a basis in observation.
But my observation of processor being produced in factory conditions is no excuse for me to assert that factory conditions existed in the ground (by chance) if I find a processor buried there.
</div></div>

that's just it right there. you do not 'believe' in the conditions of an IBM factory. you CAN know. by observation. in the same way, eventually it will be known exactly what the conditions of pre-biotic earth were like, just as now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt how species originated, and presently there are some very good models being refined as more data is collected.

again i would recommend a brush up on the watchmaker argument, and the irreducible complexity issue- the DOVER case in the NOVA special are good starters.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

check this out:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YL4cFjmnQT8"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YL4cFjmnQT8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>


sort of begs a few questions lol, for the creator. I mean, it's a little overkill isn't it?

we're not made for space travel. nobody has contacted us yet, officially.

it's not easy to get out there and visit these spots.

so why not just make a happy little planet with an atmosphere.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122865503

not very smart.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

Denialism:

<span style="font-weight: bold">'Denying' Science Could Be Dangerous</span>
Heard on Talk of the Nation

January 22, 2010 - IRA FLATOW, host:

You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR News. I'm Ira Flatow. If you believe in science, you may have been challenged by people. I'm sure you have. You certainly heard us talk about it on this program, being challenged by people who are either afraid of it or don't believe in it. Who hasn't been frustrated having a conversation with someone who denies evolution?

But other issues, too, can make it sound even more confusing. Some people, for example, are worried about things like genetically modified food or the possibility of scientists creating life from scratch. You can see TV ads filled with scientifically unproven remedies: weight-loss pills, sexual aids, exercise devices that require no exercise.

Are many people freely ignoring the majority of scientific opinion? Our next guest would say yes, I'll bet. He's here to explain an anti-science phenomenon that he calls denialism and why it's just not it's not just wrong, he says, but it's dangerous.

Michael Specter is a staff writer for the New Yorker, author of the book &quot;Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives.&quot; He joins us today from Hudson, New York. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.

Mr.&amp;#65533;MICHAEL SPECTER (Author, &quot;Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives&quot: Thank you for having me.

FLATOW: Boy, that's a lot to say: it harms the planet, threatens our lives, hinders scientific progress. Tell us what you mean by that. What is denialism? How do you define it?

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: Well, denialism is something that I think we kind of know in an individual sense as denial. Sometimes we face a fact or a series of facts that are so depressing, overwhelming, burdensome, unpleasant, that we ignore them. And we ignore them for a little while, hopefully just a little while, and sometimes it's a normal response to a terrible thing, and sometimes it might even be healthy.

But when we do it as a society, that's what I call denialism. It's denial writ large, and it has significant, harmful consequences. And I think we're seeing that in a number of areas, particularly in scientific life.

FLATOW: Give me an idea when you say when we do it as a society. what thing would be in a state of denial about, for example?

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: Well, when I see that we have a virus called H1N1 that 41 percent of the American adult population says they dont want to either have a vaccine against or vaccinate their children against, that is a form of denialism that is really kind of astonishing to me.

This is a vaccine that is a flu vaccine like all other flu vaccines. The virus is not as virulent as some people thought it would be, and that's great news. It still killed thousands and thousands of people and will kill more people. And the idea that we're not vaccinating our children is just remarkable, given the safety profile of this vaccine. Obviously, there are other vaccines that are even more important that we're also ignoring.

FLATOW: So where do you see the roots of denialism coming from?

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: They're coming from a lot of places. And one of the places is, I think fair to say, that, you know, science has a way of promising and by science, I also mean journalists who write about science, including me we promise things. There are miracles every other day. There are breakthroughs. We're going to solve hunger. We're going to solve cancer. We're going to take salt out of water, and there won't be a problem with that anymore.

If we pollute the planet, we'll move to another planet, and the truth is we have done some parts of some of these things, but you know, by and large, science moves a little bit more slowly than we pretend that it does in terms of cures and treatments, and people are frustrated. And people are also lied to, and they are suspicious of big corporations, and they're suspicious of the government, and they have every reason to be. I mean, skepticism is something we should all have in our souls, but when it drips over to denialism is when we have a problem.

FLATOW: Is there politics involved in this?

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: There's all sorts of politics, but it's hard to know where the politics are because there's denialism from people who I believe are progressives and denialism from right-wing lunatics, and I'm not sure it's rarely politically motivated except insofar as maybe people reject the health care system because it's so terrible. And they use this as a way to defeat health care bills, but that's kind of tangential.

FLATOW: Where do you you know, science likes healthy skepticism.

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: Yeah.

FLATOW: I mean, where do you draw the line between healthy skepticism and denialism?

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: Well, any obviously, there are lines drawn in different places, but let's take a look at genetically engineered food. That is not genetically modified food because all the food we eat, everything we put in our mouth, has been modified either by man or nature over thousands of years.

This is a different way of doing that. It's a more precise way, and it has greater possible benefits, and greater possible risks because there are risks to everything. But we have planted two billion acres of that type of food, and zero people in the world have become ill from it, zero demonstrably ill. So the idea that somehow this is a dangerous food that we don't know enough about seems to me denialism.

So does our obsession with vitamins that again and again and again, studies show dietary supplements, most of them, to be useless. Now some, very few are worthwhile, but if you go into a vitamin store, you can take 99 percent of the products and throw them into the ocean. They're useless.

FLATOW: But you're not you're saying that there are some vitamins, and there are some other recommendations like drinking wine, you know, a couple of glasses of wine a day, that's not anything that the government can recommend, but science shows that it does help.

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: I'm not saying you should do or not do anything, but when you get reports saying echinacea is useless, and you get dozens of them, hundreds of them. And you get studies that show not only is echinacea not going to help your cold if you're a child, it's going to greatly increase the risk of a respiratory infection. You have to wonder: When is enough, enough? When is it going to stop? Because we spend millions of dollars, it's the second most-popular dietary supplement in this nation and one of the most thoroughly disproved. Homeopathy is just one of the most ridiculous and idiotic systems of belief that exist, and yet people are devoted to it.

FLATOW: A lot of this stuff I think comes from an emotional reaction. People have emotional reactions to things, or they are just I think like you said before, they're just frustrated without having a black or white situation to choose from.

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: I understand that, and the frustrations are not only real but justified. The problem is I think when we think about things, we think about them in a very narrow way. So if we look at a drug, we say gee, a drug could kill these people, and it could. We never think: What is the price of not having a drug on the market?

You know, the truth is if we all swallowed two aspirin right now, this minute, 500 Americans would die by tonight, 500. Now, does that mean we shouldn't have aspirin? Nineteen billion aspirin tablets were swallowed last year, and it's a great drug. No, what it means is there is demonstrable risk to everything we do, and we have to start thinking that way about everything.

FLATOW: You point speaking of drugs, you picked out Vioxx to focus in on your book.

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: I did.

FLATOW: Why Vioxx?

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: Well, I did it for two reasons. One is because I want people to understand that I believe there are genuine roots to denialism that make sense. And Vioxx was a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory to treat arthritis, and it was sold by Merck as a miracle drug. And it seemed to be a miracle drug.

It took pain away in a way that aspirin didn't and without the gastrointestinal complications of aspirin, which can be quite severe. For many people, it was heaven-sent.

It had a cardiovascular risk, and it killed many people. The FDA estimates 55,000 people died. Now, I included and they took it off the market, and Merck was terrible in the way they marketed the drug and took advantage of it because they understood these risks.

However, if you look at who died and who had problems with that drug and eliminated those people because we know who's at risk for heart disease. You know, if you have cholesterolemia, blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, a history of heart disease in your family, these are things that would disqualify you from taking that drug.

But for other people, that drug isn't any more dangerous than any other drug, and it has the potential to really help. So we live in a world where medical doctors can prescribe any drug for anything. So the thing to do was take it off the market, but if you looked at the numbers, you'd have to say: How many how much good would that drug have done if we'd used it properly?

FLATOW: I've heard this from other doctors, saying, you know, I wish I had that drug around to prescribe. It's terrible that they had a shotgun approach with it instead of focusing on patients who could use it.

Mr.&amp;#65533;SPECTER: They had a shotgun approach with it because they could, because our system lets them get away with that, and they ignored things they shouldn't have ignored. And our system let them put it on the market, and it let them market it to millions of people.

It's most heavily advertised drug ever sold in America before Viagra came along, and that's wrong. But to me, these are political issues that we can address. It's like people are opposed when people talk about genetically modified food, organic food, genetically engineered food, what I often hear in the end is they're opposed to large corporations owning seeds, and they're worried about chemicals.

Both of those things are well worth worrying about, but science isn't a company. It's not a country. It's a way of thinking. It's a way of working. And if we don't like the way seed companies work and own property, we can deal with that politically. It's actually not even that hard to deal with that politically.

FLATOW: Elizabeth in Arkansas, hi. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.

ELIZABETH (Caller): Hi. Thanks for taking my phone call.

FLATOW: Go ahead.

ELIZABETH: I wanted to thank your guest for the issue. I think denialism is an issue that's pretty important in a lot of social issues, too. And I think in some social discussions where there's a lot of disparity of opinion, denialism kind of derails the discussion on things a lot of the time.

One of the specific examples I was thinking of was related to the discussion over abortion. And one of the examples, I guess, I was thinking of is for years and years, it was thought that the unborn fetus was not aware of the abortion procedure when it was happening. And ultrasounds are already debunking that and illustrating that these unborn children are aware of the abortion as it happens. And I think science is actually going to be pretty useful in the discussion as we learn much, much more about unborn life.

FLATOW: Michael?

Mr. SPECTER: I believe this is an issue for moral debate, and I'm truly really trying to focus on clear-cut scientific lines in the sand about studies and why we use things and why we don't and why we trust things and why we don't. And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue. I wouldnt actually call it denialism.

FLATOW: Elizabeth, if there was a research to show you that the unborn fetus at those age - at that time that you're speaking about it - was not in the state that you think it is, would you accept that?

ELIZABETH: I think that that - I was just bringing that up as one example of a discussion in which science could be helpful. (unintelligible)

FLATOW: Well, that's why I'm asking. If the science showed you that it was not like you thought it was, would you deny that?

ELIZABETH: I think that he is correct that it's a moral issue, also. But I think that if you bring science to the table, it at least helps to open the discussion and hopefully help people on both sides of the issue find some common discussion areas that could then move it beyond, you know...

Mr. SPECTER: Can I just ask one question?

ELIZABETH: ...whether or not, you know, the baby can feel it, too...

FLATOW: Yeah.

ELIZABETH: ...to the moral issue. But I think science could be very helpful in the discussion.

FLATOW: Good point. Go ahead. You wanted to jump in there, Mike?

Mr. SPECTER: I just wanted to ask a question. If science showed conclusively that an unborn fetus at a particular time couldn't feel anything, would you then change your mind? Because if you wouldn't, you are exactly what I'm talking about.

ELIZABETH: Well, I - what my point - that is an interesting point of view, and I do understand that. I think you're probably right that in moral discussions, people on both sides believe that either the viability of the baby or the rights of a woman would make the decision beyond science. But my point was just that you could bring science to the table to help find some common ground and discuss this as best as possible and lead to some progress.

FLATOW: All right, Elizabeth. Thank you.

ELIZABETH: Thank you.

FLATOW: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. We're talking about denialism with Michael Specter this hour on SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR News. I'm Ira Flatow.

I think that she was a good example, Michael, of bringing science - she made a point about bringing science to the table, and even bringing science to table didn't sway her one way or the other.

Mr. SPECTER: I mean, you know, I don't want to be rude because I do believe that that is a moral issue and it's very complex. But that really makes that's the example of what I'm talking about.

People want to believe something. They want to believe that vitamins are natural or they want to believe that organic food is going to be more nutritional than another type of food. And it doesn't - or they want to believe that a fetus at a certain age can feel something that it can or cannot feel. And they don't really, in the end, care what the facts say, because belief is more important to them than data. And that is what a denialist is.

FLATOW: Let me go to Joseph in San Antonio. Hi, Joe.

JOSEPH (Caller): Hey. Thanks for taking the call.

FLATOW: Hi, there. Go ahead.

JOSEPH: Yeah. I was wondering, is there any way to calculate a half life, or how do you say that - how long it's going to last? Like, say, for instance, I think of a global warming 10 years ago, and to me, that's like where high fructose corn syrup and refined carbs are today, as where, you know, America says, yeah, we use high fructose corn syrup, and none of the other countries really use that that much as we do. But, you know, let's keep on using it because there's no way that could be bad for us, you know?

FLATOW: All right. Let's get a question on that. Is there a timeline where people catch up to issue?

Mr. SPECTER: Yeah. I think there is, but I think it might be one of those classic cases of you know it when you see it. I think with high fructose corn syrup, we've been moving pretty rapidly in the direction of realizing that this causes a lot of harm in a lot of ways. And I think we're seeing some changes, even in the big - industrial agriculture farms are paying attention now.

FLATOW: Why didn't you take on an issue like climate change or global warming deniers?

Mr. SPECTER: I did - well, first of all, I took it on in a couple of ways. I made it very clear in the book that I think it's the worst crisis mankind has ever created. In the last chapter on synthetic biology is a bit about addressing the problems.

But I didn't write about it, and I didn't write about creationism for very simple reasons. I wanted to deal with gray issues that we could have some discussions about, like food. And I don't see creationism and evolution as a gray issue. I don't see global warming, really, as a gray issue. The data is so clear to me, and it's been shown to be so clear by so many people and so eloquently. I just didn't understand what I was going to contribute to that discussion.

FLATOW: Do you think that you can present evidence that denialists, as you would call them, have enough an open mind that if you present the evidence to them they might change their mind?

Mr. SPECTER: Yes, I do, because A, I'm not a pessimist, and B, I believe a lot of people who live a certain way - you know, people who care about organic food by and large care about the earth and sustaining the earth, and they want things to be healthy. And sometimes they don't understand that if you engineered some vitamin A into rice and got it to the right people, you'd save lives in Africa.

And we have a billion people going to bed hungry every night in this country, in this world. And it's going to get significantly more demanding on the next 30 years, as our population grows. And we're not going to be able to make that food in the way these people want. We're going to have to use the fruits of science as one approach, and we can do that beautifully now.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm.

Mr. SPECTER: So I think when that's explained to some people and demonstrated to some people, they say, fine. I mean, I eat organic food. It's not like organic food is bad. it's just that we live in a very rich place and we can afford very expensive food, but most people can't.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm. All right. Michael, thank you for taking time to be with us today.

Mr. SPECTER: I'm very happy to have been here.

FLATOW: Michael Specter is a staff writer for The New Yorker and author of the book, &quot;Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives.&quot;

We're going to take a break. Come back and talk about the chemical BPA. It's in lots of kinds of plastics, and it's a controversial topic about - you know, how - where is it? How much is it? Should - how should it be regulated? So stay with us. Our number: 1-800-989-8255. You can tweet us @scifri, @-S-C-I-F-R-I, and you can stay with us on Second Life, where the folks are gathering at the SCIENCE FRIDAY Island. We'll be right back after this break.

Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

monk, do you see a difference between evolution (which I'm not sure about) and adaption (which I believe is really what happens)?


And how did the Dogon tribes of west Africa know so much about science before science became a western subject?

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">monk, do you see a difference between evolution (which I'm not sure about) and adaption (which I believe is really what happens)?


And how did the Dogon tribes of west Africa know so much about science before science became a western subject? </div></div>

well the first 'western' civilizations like the greeks and romans got a lot of their knowledge of science from egypt in antiquity;
everything 'evolves'- the different so-called races of humans is an effect of evolution or adaptation...but i'm pretty sure we don't evolve into completely different species...i'm absolutely certain we did not change from fish to apes to humans;
and in any case the so-called theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life started on earth...
it does not explain it or claim to explain it...and darwin's premise that races of humanity may represent sub-species is an incredibly flawed premise as all humans are the very same species can can inter-breed at will;
logic would dictate that humans &amp; chimps can interbreed if they are so similar genetically &amp; are from a common ancestor;
simple logic says that since there are still men &amp; there are still chimps, that a sub-race of man-chimps would exist who are on a different evolutionary schedule than their currently full-human and full-chimpanzee brothers

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">monk, do you see a difference between evolution (which I'm not sure about) and adaption (which I believe is really what happens)?


And how did the Dogon tribes of west Africa know so much about science before science became a western subject? </div></div>

well the first 'western' civilizations like the greeks and romans got a lot of their knowledge of science from egypt in antiquity;
everything 'evolves'- the different so-called races of humans is an effect of evolution or adaptation...but i'm pretty sure we don't evolve into completely different species...i'm absolutely certain we did not change from fish to apes to humans;
and in any case the so-called theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life started on earth...
it does not explain it or claim to explain it...and darwin's premise that races of humanity may represent sub-species is an incredibly flawed premise as all humans are the very same species can can inter-breed at will;
logic would dictate that humans &amp; chimps can interbreed if they are so similar genetically &amp; are from a common ancestor;
simple logic says that since there are still men &amp; there are still chimps, that a sub-race of man-chimps would exist who are on a different evolutionary schedule than their currently full-human and full-chimpanzee brothers </div></div>

I believe white people adapted to the colder climes of Europe; they didn't need dark skin for example.
Some people would have us think whites are more 'evolved' than blacks. Darwin's book formed the basis of Hitler's racist policies.

[blugiant]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">monk, do you see a difference between evolution (which I'm not sure about) and adaption (which I believe is really what happens)?


And how did the Dogon tribes of west Africa know so much about science before science became a western subject? </div></div>

well the first 'western' civilizations like the greeks and romans got a lot of their knowledge of science from egypt in antiquity;
everything 'evolves'- the different so-called races of humans is an effect of evolution or adaptation...but i'm pretty sure we don't evolve into completely different species...i'm absolutely certain we did not change from fish to apes to humans;
and in any case the so-called theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life started on earth...
it does not explain it or claim to explain it...and darwin's premise that races of humanity may represent sub-species is an incredibly flawed premise as all humans are the very same species can can inter-breed at will;
logic would dictate that humans &amp; chimps can interbreed if they are so similar genetically &amp; are from a common ancestor;
simple logic says that since there are still men &amp; there are still chimps, that a sub-race of man-chimps would exist who are on a different evolutionary schedule than their currently full-human and full-chimpanzee brothers </div></div>

I believe white people adapted to the colder climes of Europe; they didn't need dark skin for example.
Some people would have us think whites are more 'evolved' than blacks. Darwin's book formed the basis of Hitler's racist policies. </div></div>


reason y mii bring upp da dogon iss cah dem theory iss dat human beings orginated inn space ann natt pon earth. natt seyinn dem right ar wrang butt da theory aff evolution as fact eliminated addar possible xxplanations

polar bears adapted too cold climate ann dem fur tunn mzungu butt dem skinn undar de fur iss blakk