Biblical literalism, evolution and the role of terminology [split from Seven Little Words]

MaeZe said:

Chickens happen to make easier to manage lab rats.

From the WA Po article:

Click to expand...

Let us hope that they begin their experiments with little Bantams, and not one of the giant breeds. Better safe than sorry.

Roxxsmom said:

Those things already look kind of like dinosaurs.

Seriously, birds don't need teeth. They're already perfectly good at attacking us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/what-in-the-world/australia-magpie-season.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ttacks-in-oregon-park/?utm_term=.a7bdbba7a8be

Click to expand...

Let's imagine a cassowary with teeth. Or, a flock of Canada geese - remember the scenes in 'Jurassic Park' where the flock of little dinosaurs attacked? Canada geese are bigger, without being overly large. They flock together and are aggressive, especially if they are upset. And who knows what might upset a toothed goose??

Albedo said:

Do we get a vote? Because I vote we put teeth on lammergeiers first. Why go for a chicken-sized velociraptor when you can have a velociraptor-sized velociraptor that can fly, eats bones and small children, and looks like it erupted fully formed from a metal album cover? Nothing can possibly go wrong with this idea.

Click to expand...

frimble3 said:

Let us hope that they begin their experiments with little Bantams, and not one of the giant breeds. Better safe than sorry.

Click to expand...

*googles lammergeiers* Errr, sorry, but I have to go with frimble on this one. Actually, no, I want chickens with teeth AND leg feathers, leg feathers are hilarious.

MaeZe said:

Yes, actually.

Turns out we have a lot of genes that are simply turned off rather than gone.

'Chickenosaurus': paleontologist aims to re-create the dinosaur in every chicken

Horner has a plan to turn on turned-off genes in chickens plus splice in some new ones.

But it turns out chicken not only have genes for teeth, they also have genes for scales and claws.

Horner's TED talk is fun: Where are the baby dinosaurs

Or for the written summary if you don't have 20 minutes at the moment:
WA Po: Paleontologist Jack Horner is hard at work trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur

Turning genes on and off, coding for proteins and protein folding is the next generation medical science, or rather one could also say it's the current generation of medical research.

Click to expand...

I loved that TED talk, and thanks for the links! Just the idea of using a chicken as a genetic Mr. Potato Head, mixing and matching various traits, is fascinating. I'd love to see the results.

AW Admin said:

Regarding hens with teeth:



See Hen's Teeth Not So Rare After All

Click to expand...

So maybe the saying can stick around, and just mean the opposite of what it used to?

I'd basically be the worst Elon Musk. Instead of Mars trips and electric cars, I'd be spending my billions on making birds with teeth.

Albedo said:

I'd basically be the worst Elon Musk. Instead of Mars trips and electric cars, I'd be spending my billions on making birds with teeth.

Click to expand...

In the long run, probably just as useful. After all, a flock of chickens that can eat a predator minimizes the effort spent guarding them. The foxes will be putting up fences to guard their dens from the chickens.

Humans still have genes for making tails as well. We actually have a tail as embryos, though it usually doesn't develop beyond a little fused nubbin at the base of the spine called the coccyx.

Once in a while, however...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263034/

cetaceans are occasionally born with vestigial hind limbs too.

https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpr...es-phylogeny-fetal-whales-have-hindlimb-buds/

There's no end to the coolness of nature.

frimble3 said:

In the long run, probably just as useful. After all, a flock of chickens that can eat a predator minimizes the effort spent guarding them. The foxes will be putting up fences to guard their dens from the chickens.

Click to expand...

The main cause of death to chickens is other chickens (featherpecking, cannibalizing)... so there might still be a net loss of chickenage.

Roxxsmom said:

I've noticed that one thing that has come up occasionally over the years with students is when one says that they really are impressed with the evidence, but they "can't" accept it because of their religion. Aside from the puzzling notion that one isn't allowed to choose a better religion in the US (a land where freedom of religion is part of our DNA),

Click to expand...

I think that the role in peer pressure and innate survival instincts that program us to stick with the group at all costs play a massive part in science denial and other similar behaviours such as clinging to harmful peer groups/cults (and the belief systems that's required within them) and staying in abusive relationships of any kind.

Basically, the situation where humans can choose to change their peer group has only existed for an infinitesimally small amount of time compared to the time humans, human ancestors and social primates generally spent in situations where total rejection from the peer group meant a slow, lonely death.

In early humans, the social cohesion of the group (for a genus that's reliant on co-operative hunting, hunter/gatherer division of labour and sharing of food, etc) is more important to survival than having an accurate belief system. If your group believes in a load of weird stuff that makes no sense (but the incorrect beliefs don't affect the ability to hunt/gather, etc), you'll be more successful at hunting, gathering, keeping warm, finding/making shelter, etc, if you're all working together. Divisions within the group could threaten the survival of the whole group. And the choice to just leave your group and join another one simply does not exist. Even if there were situations where you could join another group (e.g. joining another group upon reaching sexual maturity) you'd have to make a special effort to fit in with that group, believe what they'd believe, try to establish a status within the group, etc, that means you are still in a situation where choosing to adapt your beliefs to fit in gives you a better chance of survival.

We're descended from all the survivors, i.e. descended from primates that survived being the omega by managing to cling on to the edges of the group by being really, really good at blending in. Descended from early humans who put their personal beliefs aside to fit in, increasing their chances of survival and the group's.

Given all that, it's really not surprising that people will cling rigidly to the beliefs of their peer group, even if something (like hard, undeniable evidence) is pointing to the contrary. Cultish/extremist religions* exploit this to the max. "If you don't believe x you're a heretic/unbeliever/kaafir/add any term here with the meaning "you're not part of this group any more". They also target vulnerable people, i.e. people in need of social support, friends, etc. They give them that, then threaten to withdraw it if they don't toe the line. And people born into families that already believe like that have to face the possibility of being rejected by their family.

*extreme versions of many religions do this, while more moderate versions of the same religions don't. I'm talking about the extreme ones that do this kind of thing, not entire religions.

Additional things like fear of death (i.e. ceasing to exist rather than going to a happy afterlife), fear of the unknown, etc, also play a part... i.e. adding to the mindset that makes people cling to what their family/peer group/social network have told them they have to believe. At this point there is not only basic survival instincts kicking in, but also strong emotions that prevent them from questioning their beliefs. That is one hell of a powerful cocktail. Just presenting the evidence and telling people "you can choose a new religion" (peer group, social network, family - because all that's tied up in religion for many people) is nowhere near enough.



ETA: I realise I've just spent ages giving an evolutionary explanation as to why people deny the existence of evolution.

frimble3 said:

Let's imagine a cassowary with teeth. Or, a flock of Canada geese - remember the scenes in 'Jurassic Park' where the flock of little dinosaurs attacked? Canada geese are bigger, without being overly large. They flock together and are aggressive, especially if they are upset. And who knows what might upset a toothed goose??

Click to expand...

I want to know why avian dinosaurs evolved away from all that to become the small, toothless creatures of today. I'm guessing it's to do with the fact that ecosystems can only support small numbers of top predators and mammals were dominating those niches.

Or maybe just that it was only the small ones that survived the mass extinction 65 mya.

Sorry, my knowledge of evolution that doesn't evolve hominins is quite limited (open to suggestions for up-to-date books on avian evolution).

neandermagnon said:

I want to know why avian dinosaurs evolved away from all that to become the small, toothless creatures of today. I'm guessing it's to do with the fact that ecosystems can only support small numbers of top predators and mammals were dominating those niches.

Or maybe just that it was only the small ones that survived the mass extinction 65 mya.

Sorry, my knowledge of evolution that doesn't evolve hominins is quite limited (open to suggestions for up-to-date books on avian evolution).

Click to expand...

The K-Pg extinction had a lot to do with it, I think. The dinosaurs that survived had already developed many adaptations towards flight: small size being one, but avian bone structure and respiration are also highly derived. There's a hypothesis that the neornithine beak actually aided those birds in surviving: some seeds would have lasted through the global firestorm, so anything that could eat seeds was at an advantage. Being able to fly to areas of refuge obviously would have helped as well.

And once you've conquered the skies, why would you go back to being a large, lumbersome land animal? Lots have given it a shot: from Eocene terror birds, right up to the plentiful emus I dodge driving home from work every week, but in evolution once you find what you're good at you tend to stick to it.

neandermagnon said:

I think that the role in peer pressure and innate survival instincts that program us to stick with the group at all costs play a massive part in science denial and other similar behaviours such as clinging to harmful peer groups/cults (and the belief systems that's required within them) and staying in abusive relationships of any kind.

Basically, the situation where humans can choose to change their peer group has only existed for an infinitesimally small amount of time compared to the time humans, human ancestors and social primates generally spent in situations where total rejection from the peer group meant a slow, lonely death.

In early humans, the social cohesion of the group (for a genus that's reliant on co-operative hunting, hunter/gatherer division of labour and sharing of food, etc) is more important to survival than having an accurate belief system. If your group believes in a load of weird stuff that makes no sense (but the incorrect beliefs don't affect the ability to hunt/gather, etc), you'll be more successful at hunting, gathering, keeping warm, finding/making shelter, etc, if you're all working together. Divisions within the group could threaten the survival of the whole group. And the choice to just leave your group and join another one simply does not exist. Even if there were situations where you could join another group (e.g. joining another group upon reaching sexual maturity) you'd have to make a special effort to fit in with that group, believe what they'd believe, try to establish a status within the group, etc, that means you are still in a situation where choosing to adapt your beliefs to fit in gives you a better chance of survival.

We're descended from all the survivors, i.e. descended from primates that survived being the omega by managing to cling on to the edges of the group by being really, really good at blending in. Descended from early humans who put their personal beliefs aside to fit in, increasing their chances of survival and the group's.

Given all that, it's really not surprising that people will cling rigidly to the beliefs of their peer group, even if something (like hard, undeniable evidence) is pointing to the contrary. Cultish/extremist religions* exploit this to the max. "If you don't believe x you're a heretic/unbeliever/kaafir/add any term here with the meaning "you're not part of this group any more". They also target vulnerable people, i.e. people in need of social support, friends, etc. They give them that, then threaten to withdraw it if they don't toe the line. And people born into families that already believe like that have to face the possibility of being rejected by their family.

*extreme versions of many religions do this, while more moderate versions of the same religions don't. I'm talking about the extreme ones that do this kind of thing, not entire religions.

Additional things like fear of death (i.e. ceasing to exist rather than going to a happy afterlife), fear of the unknown, etc, also play a part... i.e. adding to the mindset that makes people cling to what their family/peer group/social network have told them they have to believe. At this point there is not only basic survival instincts kicking in, but also strong emotions that prevent them from questioning their beliefs. That is one hell of a powerful cocktail. Just presenting the evidence and telling people "you can choose a new religion" (peer group, social network, family - because all that's tied up in religion for many people) is nowhere near enough.

Click to expand...

(Took out last line which i don't think adds either way to your main point.)

This is the challenge. For Democrats, for liberals, for anyone who believes truth is better than falsehood, even the painful truth.

Engaging with 'groups' of any kind, which encourage denial of truth. A Secular Evangelicalism.

frimble3 said:

On the other hand, they are practical about other natural phenomena: they don't believe that earthquakes, hurricanes, etc are God's punishment on anybody for anything, those are just part of the delicate mechanism of the world..

Click to expand...

Actually, a disturbing fraction of these true believers also are convinced that natural disasters, etc., are indeed the handiwork of God to punish the iniquitous, same as he did back in Sodom and Gomorrah days. I believe Pat Robertson blamed Hurricane Katrina on homosexuality in New Orleans, as just one example.

caw

blacbird said:

Actually, a disturbing fraction of these true believers also are convinced that natural disasters, etc., are indeed the handiwork of God to punish the iniquitous, same as he did back in Sodom and Gomorrah days. I believe Pat Robertson blamed Hurricane Katrina on homosexuality in New Orleans, as just one example.

caw

Click to expand...

It certainly makes for handy propaganda, anyway. I can't make up my mind whether or not the leaders of the politicized RR movement and the so-called "ministry of prosperity" have drunk their own kool aid and actually believe the lies they spout, or if they're cynically using such rhetoric to control people, and to sow discord and mistrust, while enriching themselves. I suspect the latter in most cases, though the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Roxxsmom said:

I can't make up my mind whether or not the leaders of the politicized RR movement and the so-called "ministry of prosperity" have drunk their own kool aid and actually believe the lies they spout, or if they're cynically using such rhetoric to control people, and to sow discord and mistrust, while enriching themselves. I suspect the latter in most cases, though the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

Yup. There's a pretty big Venn diagram overlap here, I think. It's both easy and profitable for them.

caw