Newsweek: Dumb things American's believe

[Ducimus]

http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html

[SteamWake]

Wow Newsweek is still in print?? :hmmm:

[Aramike]

Wow Newsweek is still in print?? :hmmm::har:

[Ducimus]

Well, it is more of a magazine then a newspaper. It's newspapers that are in trouble. You can still find newsweek in just about any doctors office waiting room, bookstore or library that keeps a periodical section or magazine rack.

[Skybird]

http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html

Some of those poll results are really scaring.

That in 1999, every fifth still believed in that the sun is revolving around Earth, can be forgiven. The church has officially rehabilitated Gallileo just 6 or 7 years earlier. :D

[August]

Some of those poll results are really scaring.

That in 1999, every fifth still believed in that the sun is revolving around Earth, can be forgiven. The church has officially rehabilitated Gallileo just 6 or 7 years earlier. :D

Now what makes you think that one is the result of the other?

[Skybird]

Now what makes you think that one is the result of the other?

I did not. I'm just wondering who is worse off with his education scheme!? :D

[August]

I did not. I'm just wondering who is worse off with his education scheme!? :D


Naw that's pretty much all public school stupid that you're seeing there. Private schools, even religious ones, tend to actually require student participation.

In my job it's always fun to have explain to a young man the universal truth that the 12 years of free education he just wasted on screwing off will severely limit his ability to earn a decent income for years if not decades to come.

[Castout]

Some of those poll results are really scaring.

That in 1999, every fifth still believed in that the sun is revolving around Earth, can be forgiven. The church has officially rehabilitated Gallileo just 6 or 7 years earlier. :D



I'm a Catholic myself but I resent how the church taught that the sun was revolving around the earth.

Simply because there's no biblical basis for that. I actually asked others in a Christian forum where did those priests get the idea and the verses they came out with were really needed to be twisted and stretched far to fit in that it was either an obvious lie or a severe case of stupidity. God helps us on either!
Of course the people who gave the verses stood up for the church for having been mistaken but I do not. To me it was a plain abuse of bible verses though i take no belief that the bible was written by God himself or contains no error at all because it was written by many different people who had had faith on God and experience and wisdom on God and which was translated many many times from one language to another.

Now because of those priests' arrogance and stupidity many people believe the whole teaching is wrong and a bunch of mumbo jumbo. :nope:



Had I lived several hundred years back I'm sure I'd have been burned at the stake too for too many reasons one of which disagreeing with them on the bible teaching on death and life after death. Thanks to these Catholic priests, the mainstream Christianity beliefs on death and life after death is now no more the same as those in the early church. Thank you for frakking it up that now every people think they are essentially immortal and would come back to God even though they didn't come from God in the first place. Had people come from God as Jesus did they would have known something about God without being taught.

Just because people choose to believe in Christ it doesn't mean they have to stop being critical(not the same with being skeptical) in what they believe in. On the contrary be even more critical so they'd actually know what they believe in and may God help them on that too.

[August]

I'm a Catholic myself but I resent how the church taught that the sun was revolving around the earth.

....

Now because of those priests' arrogance and stupidity many people believe the whole teaching is wrong and a bunch of mumbo jumbo. :nope:

Well that's just silly. The Catholic Church hasn't preached that nonsense for hundreds of years. Nobody alive today got that idea from them including you.

[Aramike]

This just in: Some people are idiots.

Nice exclusive.

[Platapus]

The scary question is that of these people, how many of them vote? :o:o:o

[Stealth Hunter]

The scary question is that of these people, how many of them vote? :o:o:o

Odds are most of them are still eligible to vote. I lol'd and shuttered at their part on witchcraft and the supernatural.

[/URL][URL="http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html"] (http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html)
It seems obvious (http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/19/famous-people-falsely-accused-then-exonerated.slide3.html) that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in withcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common in Americans, according to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx): 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half a decade would make much difference.

[Platapus]

I work as an Election Official during the elections. I get to meet an "interesting" cross section of our citizens at the polling location. After the election, I often question the logic of universal suffrage.

It is a great concept, but do we really really really want every one to be able to vote?. In a democratically elected government, alas, the answer is, unfortunately yes.

There should not be a poll tax, but a poll test. :yep:

[Platapus]

I wonder if the 21% of the people who believe in witches are associated with the religion of Wicca in which the subscribers believe in good witches?

[Ducimus]

I wonder if the 21% of the people who believe in witches are associated with the religion of Wicca in which the subscribers believe in good witches?

I have a Coworker who's a wiccan. Before i knew that, my thought was wiccan's were some group you'd hear about, but would probably never bump into. The fact that I have makes me think their more common then one might think. The thing here is, we say "witch" and we think of green skin, black pointy hats, a broom, and a bubbling caudrlon. To a wiccan, the word "witch" probably has an entirely different context. I really don't know, just giving it the bennfit of the doubt.

[TLAM Strike]

I have a Coworker who's a wiccan. Before i knew that, my thought was wiccan's were some group you'd hear about, but would probably never bump into. The fact that I have makes me think their more common then one might think. The thing here is, we say "witch" and we think of green skin, black pointy hats, a broom, and a bubbling caudrlon. To a wiccan, the word "witch" probably has an entirely different context. I really don't know, just giving it the bennfit of the doubt.

I went to school with a girl who was a Wiccan, so people still believing in witchcraft isn't surprising to me. :03:

[Sailor Steve]

In my job it's always fun to have explain to a young man the universal truth that the 12 years of free education he just wasted on screwing off will severely limit his ability to earn a decent income for years if not decades to come.
Well, after September you can use me for an example. :sunny:

[The Third Man]

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

[razark]

The scary question is that of these people, how many of them vote?
We're talking Americans here. There's probably not very many of them that actually vote. :nope:

There should not be a poll tax, but a poll test.
I get the feeling you'd have a very small voting base that way.

Is the test only for the voters, or the candidates, also?

[CptSimFreak]

Odds are most of them are still eligible to vote. I lol'd and shuttered at their part on witchcraft and the supernatural.


It seems obvious (http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/19/famous-people-falsely-accused-then-exonerated.slide3.html) that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in withcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common in Americans, according to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx): 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half a decade would make much difference.
It seems obvious they never played "World Of Warcraft" :D :rotfl2:

[Skybird]

I work as an Election Official during the elections. I get to meet an "interesting" cross section of our citizens at the polling location. After the election, I often question the logic of universal suffrage.

It is a great concept, but do we really really really want every one to be able to vote?. In a democratically elected government, alas, the answer is, unfortunately yes.

There should not be a poll tax, but a poll test. :yep:

Preaching this since years. In principle - and ignoring the problem of how to realsie that - one should need to qualify and prove one's competence to vote. and ion theory it should also made sure that people vote for this or that party not for idiotic motives like family tradition or long-held habits (this forms the relative majority of voters!), but for fact-oriented weighing of the püarty'S/politician'S acts in the last legislation period. Which means that somebody wnating to vote must prove his comprehensive knowledge and understanding of said record of decisions and acts of the past years.

In principle there should be a quaolification exam like at school, an dthen some bain surgery to get the nasty habit of just voting for a party because one has always voted for that party out of people's head. :D We also need a high injection of altruistic thinking that keeps egoism in check.

In ancient athen, democracy did not work too well at times, already, and at some time people were so unsatisfied with the constant corruption of the dmoicratic ideals that they decided to not vote, but to have a lottery. Random chance should made sure that all in all a balance between corrupting ursupators of power, and honest brokers of dmeocratic ideals would be in chgarge at any time. But most oridnary people being chosen for offices did not feel competent to fill said office, and sold their duties to advertsing "professionals". And again - the idea behgind the new mechanism got corrupted like democratic elections are corrupted today, though by different mechanisms.

In the end both the communist utopia and demiocracy are failing for the same reason: the fail to adress the inherent ammount of egoism in man. But both would only function properly if people would act and decide reasonably, altruistically, placing his own self interest second to that of the communal wellbeing. But that is not the case with parties and ost poltiicians, and it is not the case with a large share of voters as well. And that is why democracy is failing us.

It is a system for logically thinkling Vulcans only, not for selfish, greedy, irrational humans.

[ReFaN]

in other news, the earth is also flat.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[Jimbuna]

This astounded me :o


Lost? Don't ask an American. Sixty-three percent of young Americans can't find Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/02/national/main1571756.shtml) on a map, despite the ongoing U.S involvement there. Nine out of 10 can't find Afghanistan (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foundation/pdf/NGSRoper2006Report.pdf)—even if you give them the advantage of a map limited to Asia. And more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify (http://www.newsweek.com/2007/09/04/dunce-cap-nation.html) the continent that's home to the Amazon River


What frightens me is the fact the above might even be replicated in the UK :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

I cannot refute this as intelligently so I will just have to quote another source...

From: http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

[Skybird]

I have just explained the scientific procedure to somebody just days ago, in another thread, and I do not repeat it all again. A good explanation what science
is doing and why it necessarily leads not to claims of penultimate truiths, but theories "only", I found in this book. the later chapter on Astrology as a
pseudoscience you can still use when replacing the word "Astrology" with for example "believing" or "religion" or "miracle and wonder", something like that.
the general remarks on astrology would be valid for these as well. All this stuff I set up should already be known to everybody who has done time at
university, it really is very basic and fundamental stuff.

The layout and small font is the way it is because I cannot change it and also cannot paste and copy the text.

http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/3091/image1yy.jpg (http://img576.imageshack.us/i/image1yy.jpg/)

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3159/image2qv.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/i/image2qv.jpg/)

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4065/image3un.jpg (http://img713.imageshack.us/i/image3un.jpg/)

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/7321/image4d.jpg (http://img834.imageshack.us/i/image4d.jpg/)

from: CWS Mastering Astronomy online e-book version of Bennet/Donahue/Schneider/Voit: The Cosmic
Perspective, 5th edition, Pearson Education (highly recommended book, worth every penny).

[tater]

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

This post shows that you don't know what a scientific theory actually is. Theory has one meaning in English, and a very specific meaning as scientific jargon.

Also, while Dawin's theory (natural selection) is a mechanism up for debate (there are a few minor variants out there), the FACT of evolution is different. Evolution is the OBSERVED change in species over time. It is fact (unless you have dinosaurs, etc running around in your yard).

The theory merely attempt to explain WHY the balance of species has changed over time. Natural selection simply means that the animals that are more reproductively successful increase in number at the expense of those who are not successful. If you think this is absurd, apparently you think that animals that have more offspring don't end up being a higher % of a given population (something that is self-evident).

It's been demonstrated in the laboratory of agriculture, where animals have been artificially selected by man for ages, and now dominate (horses, for example).

[Tchocky]

The amount of people who don't believe evolution to be real may be a strong argument against it.

[razark]

The amount of people who don't believe evolution to be real may be a strong argument against it.
Facts don't get approved by popular vote.

[August]

Facts don't get approved by popular vote.

I don't think he meant it like that.

If I'm right he meant that if natural selection theory was correct people stupid enough to believe in a flat earth should have gone the way of the Dodo by now...

[Skybird]

I think he meant it sarcastic, razark.

[razark]

I think he meant it sarcastic, razark.
I certainly hope so. However, I've run into enough people out there that believe that makes a convincing argument...

[Tchocky]

I think he meant it sarcastic, razark.

Bullseye

[razark]

Bullseye
I apologize for my reaction, then.

[Sailor Steve]

Also, while Dawin's theory (natural selection) is a mechanism up for debate (there are a few minor variants out there), the FACT of evolution is different. Evolution is the OBSERVED change in species over time. It is fact (unless you have dinosaurs, etc running around in your yard).
I disagree, but only mildly, and admit that my background in science is sketchy, to put it mildly. What I believe is that the concept of THEORY admits to the possibility that said theory may be flawed, or even wrong. I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it. That said, its actual nature - why it is the way it is - is still the subject of much debate, hence the Theory part.

So evolution is an observed phenomenon, but one with missing parts. Lest someone think I'm even remotely dismissing it, I say that while it is "only" theory, it is the best one going.

But all that is my roundabout way of getting to this: There may be scientists in the field who change the shape of that theory tomorrow, and scientests who subscribe to it will say something along the lines of "Well, back to square one."

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

[razark]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

The fact: Populations change over time. This has been observed in the wild, as well as under laboratory conditions.

The theory: Populations change over time due to selection, either by natural means, or by conditions imposed by humans.

The fact of evolution is what is observed. The theory is the model built to explain why the fact is observed. As more facts are observed, the theory is modified to account for the facts.

The same with gravity. The fact of gravity, I drop something, it falls down. The theory of gravity explains why it happens. The theory may be wrong, but it is the best explanation for the observed facts.

[Sailor Steve]

Thank you, razark. The expands my understanding trememdously. I thought it was along those lines, but didn't really know enough to articulate it properly.

[razark]

I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it.
Humans have used evolution as well. Different breeds of dogs, cows, wheat, corn, and any other kind of livestock or crop. That's human imposed selection, as opposed to natural selection. Even before it was understood, humans were using it to shape their world.

[Safe-Keeper]

The ToE is the cornerstone of modern biology, much the same way we couldn't have the modern space industry without the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. Evolution is not only observable, it's vital to so many fields it's not funny.

Skybird:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lV1lV2tXZ9s/R3aRjoAW18I/AAAAAAAAANw/4zAVxJmZdSE/s400/Science_verses_faith_flowcharts.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

I apologize for my reaction, then.
It helps to use these: :O::DL:03:
When being sarcastic.

To go back to what I posted on the last page, you nailed it right on the head...
The fact: Populations change over time. This has been observed in the wild, as well as under laboratory conditions.
^This is a "Scientific Law". This is the HOW of science.

The theory: Populations change over time due to selection, either by natural means, or by conditions imposed by humans.^This is a "Scientific Theory". This is the WHY of science.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm a Catholic myself but I resent how the church taught that the sun was revolving around the earth.

Simply because there's no biblical basis for that. I actually asked others in a Christian forum where did those priests get the idea and the verses they came out with were really needed to be twisted and stretched far to fit in that it was either an obvious lie or a severe case of stupidity. God helps us on either!
Of course the people who gave the verses stood up for the church for having been mistaken but I do not. To me it was a plain abuse of bible verses though i take no belief that the bible was written by God himself or contains no error at all because it was written by many different people who had had faith on God and experience and wisdom on God and which was translated many many times from one language to another.

Now because of those priests' arrogance and stupidity many people believe the whole teaching is wrong and a bunch of mumbo jumbo. :nope:Keep in mind that the Bible is several thousand years old. It's from a people who did literally believe the Earth was flat and covered by a dome. Whatever verses there might be backing up the old idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth is the least of your worries. The idea that the Earth is round, and not the centre of the universe, didn't come about until much later (think the Greeks and later Copernicus).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

[Skybird]

I disagree, but only mildly, and admit that my background in science is sketchy, to put it mildly. What I believe is that the concept of THEORY admits to the possibility that said theory may be flawed, or even wrong. I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it. That said, its actual nature - why it is the way it is - is still the subject of much debate, hence the Theory part.
Gravity is a theory as well. First we had newton, than einstein. The fact of an observation alone does not make something a theory. You observe something, form a hypothesis on it, test the hypothesis by predicting an outcome, and then compare the result with the prediction, and if the test fails, you give up or correct the hypothesis and test again, and if the results confirm the prediction often enough, then you slowly raise the hypthesis to the state of a theory. A theory is a model for the purpose of explanation and detailed prediction. But every theory, always, is just temporary, even gravity. A theory is the way in which we, at present, can make best sense of observations, can explain them best and make best predictions. A hypothesis as long as it is a hypothesis can be chnaged and altered anyway you want, it only needs to base on a former observation that serves as an ignition point. without that, it just is fantasy and speculation that is not triggered by reality (an observation for example). A theory you cannot chnage so easily, in the scientific process you can only give it up if you can explain it's content in a simplier and/or more economic and/or more fact-including way.


So evolution is an observed phenomenon, but one with missing parts.
Sorry, no, it is not. Nobody ever has observed "evolution". It is the name of a theory that explains how and why species evolve and change. What we have observed are samples of species, and similiarities between them (or differences). The theory of evolution so far explains these similiarities and differences and the changes in species better than any other model that was tried on the task. That, and due to it's wide meaning in our understanding of life, are the reaosns why the theory of evolution even serves in the role of a paradigm currently.


But all that is my roundabout way of getting to this: There may be scientists in the field who change the shape of that theory tomorrow, and scientests who subscribe to it will say something along the lines of "Well, back to square one."

All theories are no absolute and final statements but just a description of the best model that so far we could have come up with. So yes, it can change indeed. But hardly "just en passant". In the light of what I said above you see that it needs a bit more to chnage a theory or paradigm. you need an alternative model that delivers the same value in explanation, but in a simplier way, or you need a model that includes all what the theory of evolution can explain - and then some more. Theoreticall spoken, in practice these things probably are more interacting. theories can be known to include contradictions, or to be not complete. solving these issues also can lead to greater adjustements of theories.

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Well, that is the clash between science and non-science. But to change a scientific statement, the reason must be found by scientific methodology, and explained in scientific terminology. that's why I said in the past in various debates that it makes no sense to bring religious dogma and sciences together. It are two totally incompatible modi operandi.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

Science always makes temporary statements only, even if temporary may mean, in case of paradigms, several centuries. Religious people often accuse science to make absolute statements that stand forever, and that science claism to have found the last, the final, the ultimate last answers. that is not only wrong an accusation, but also ironic. If you look at it, science, as i said, makes temporary statements, but it is the religious dogma that claims to know the final, the eternal truths, and makes according absolute statements that claim valdiity until the end of time. A superb example of "psychoanalytical "projection".

[The Third Man]

There aren't any dumb things Euoropeans believe? which are false?

[Ducimus]

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

Well said! :up:

[The Third Man]

So if you think a theory is wrong you have to have something to replace it? Only a fool would think such a thing. Which explains the folks at SS.

[CCIP]

So if you think a theory is wrong you have to have something to replace it?

No, in that case, you're just not thinking. You don't have to replace it per se, but in any reasonable debate you have to at least establish contradicting evidence of some form. Which is, in a way, a replacement. Otherwise you're either not thinking, or aren't articulating what you're thinking. Neither of which is a particularly good basis for terms of discussion.

Also, I invoke Godwin's law :88)

[DarkFish]

Sorry, no, it is not. Nobody ever has observed "evolution".IIRC, we have. Now I don't want to go searching all the internets for it, but I recall having read about a research in which evolution has in fact been observed on bacteria.


EDIT: you don't even need laboratory's for that. Remember the Swine Flu? Chicken Flu? Why did these viruses suddenly move from animals to humans? A simple case of evolution.

[TLAM Strike]

Also, I invoke Godwin's law :88)

LOL never heard of that one. (Just Googled it). Awesome and true... :yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

LOL never heard of that one. (Just Googled it). Awesome and true... :yeah:
:rotfl2: Nor I. Wonderful! :rock:

[Ducimus]

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/036/943/original/Godwin_WikiWorld.png?1264125607

EDIT:

To be fair though, I think the SS in this:
Which explains the folks at SS.
Was shorthand for SubSim.

[August]

I think Godwins law is stupid. I hate nazis...

[TLAM Strike]

I hate nazis...

August I didn't realize you were Indiana Jones... :hmmm:

[TheSatyr]

>>>Has dinosaurs in my yard...they are called birds these days. (See...evolution at work). I also refer to eagles as tyrannosaurus birds...heh.

[gimpy117]

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/036/943/original/Godwin_WikiWorld.png?1264125607

EDIT:

To be fair though, I think the SS in this:

Was shorthand for SubSim.

if you're Glen beck the probability starts at 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk

[Skybird]

IIRC, we have. Now I don't want to go searching all the internets for it, but I recall having read about a research in which evolution has in fact been observed on bacteria.


EDIT: you don't even need laboratory's for that. Remember the Swine Flu? Chicken Flu? Why did these viruses suddenly move from animals to humans? A simple case of evolution.
Hm, you eiether get me wrong or I used not sufficiently precise words. "Evolution" is just a model, an artifical order that we use to put our observations into relation to each other, in such a way that to us, according to our present knowledge, makes the best sense for most aspects of the data we have.

In your exmaple, we have not observed "evolution", mind oyu, such a thing does not exist, it is just a mind model of ours. We observed bacteria, that chnaged. We noticed a chnage in an established pattern. We took the old bacteria, and took the new batceria, compared them and noticed a difference.

That is the fact: the obervation, and the revealing of that something has happened between "then" and "now".

The interpetation of that is the element of "evolution". We explain it either by adaptation of a species, or a genetic malfunction (albinos for example, or rare Ligers: crossings between a lion and a tiger, like some where born just days ago), or anything else a biologist now would come up with.

Mind you, we do not even explain completely why "adaptation" takes place. Does the organism, or the cell, make a decision to influence it's genes to change in some way? How is that? why is it adapting? Why does it not just stay like it is, and go extinct? -what I mean is: theories are not complete, and may include loose ends that so far has not been tied together.

But it is just our theory that we call "evolution", and it is no nature-given fact, but our interpretation that we prefer over others for the already explained reasons. What we actually have observed - is just an observation, not "evolution".

that is the scinrtiifc hard fact. I admit that in contemporary language of course we do not stick so tightly to such precise differences between terms and conceptions. But that we see "evolution in action", is just a verbal phrase we use for reasons of easier, more comfortable communication. Not a scientific fact. Like the common meaning of "theory" in normal language is different than the meaning of the term in science. In science it is a model that must fulfill certain criterions that are sharp and solid. In everyday lanbguage, the term can mean just a vague idea, a speculation, a random movement of mind.

I think being aware of such differences and definitions is good advice when talking about science, else misunderstandings are unlikely to be avoided. that'S why I point them out. I do not just want to be picky or pedantic.

In principle what we try to do by all our theories and sciences, is this: trying to raise our ability to manipulate the elements of reality as we perceive them, and as they are available to our perception. Maybe that is the shortest summary possible of what science is, at least an important part of the answer. We do not know and we will never know how complete our knowledge is, and how true or untrue it is. To us it simply is what makes best sense to us at a given point of time, and what serves best in our craving to manipulate the material reality that we believe to live in.

[tater]

Evolution is the change in extant species over time. Period.

If there are extinct creatures, replaced by creatures that did not exist at that time, evolution is observed.

In the fossil record there are no coyotes at the same time there are dinosaurs.

The species existent have changed.

Anyone unclear on this doesn't have the least grip on the subject.

[AngusJS]

I think Godwins law is stupid. I hate nazis...
But do you hate Illinois Nazis?

[August]

But do you hate Illinois Nazis?

Everyone hates Illinois nazis. Especially Henry Gibson!