Canadian politics

[Brad Reddekopp]

Incorrect. Evolution per se is an observable fact of reality.

You mean natural selection is an observable fact of reality, right? Because I don't think you can observe the development of all the species from abiogenesis to now, because, you know, it has already happened.

That's how evolution deniers generally define evolution (I'm not saying that you necessarily are one). In biology, evolution is "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

Regarding common descent, there's enough evidence for it that to accept that it is most probably true is more reasonable than to withhold assent.

[Centurijohn]

Evolution states that the processes you've described are responsible for the development of all the species ever to roam Earth. Now unless you can observe the development of all those species, you can't check whether evolution is true. But what you can check (and what constitutes the reason for me to consider evolution very plausible) is whether the processes by which it is said to operate are capable of producing the desired outcomes.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Evolution states that the processes you've described are responsible for the development of all the species ever to roam Earth.

The definition of evolution is what told you it is in my previous post. Here are some more short descriptions of what is meant in biology by the term "evolution":

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual."

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

(The above are from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti ... ition.html -- talkorigins.org is an excellent resource for any questions you might have about evolution.)

When biologists speak of evolution, that is what they mean. They conclude from the evidence that all species on earth are descended from a common ancestor but common descent is not the definition of evolution.

Now unless you can observe the development of all those species, you can't check whether evolution is true.

You can check the evidence for common descent and there is enough such evidence for one to reasonably come to the conclusion that a life on earth most probably does have a common ancestry.

But what you can check (and what constitutes the reason for me to consider evolution very plausible) is whether the processes by which it is said to operate are capable of producing the desired outcomes.

Yes, one can observe some of the processes by which evolution happens. That is, one can observe evolution.

[Centurijohn]

I think the definition you've presented is equating the theory with the mechanisms the theory describes. But the author of that introduction you linked to mentions that there is debate amongst biologists about the definition of evolution.

In any case, I agree that there is evidence for evolution, i.e. evidence for the operation of the mechanisms involved in it.

[Brad Reddekopp]

The definition I've presented refers to the observable fact that heritable changes occur in populations and it is the most common definition I've found being used when I've heard or read evolutionary biologists talking about what evolution is.

[Centurijohn]

The definition I've presented refers to the observable fact that heritable changes occur in populations and it is the most common definition I've found being used when I've heard or read evolutionary biologists talking about what evolution is.

So you mean the hypothesis that mechanisms like natural selection account for the development of all species is called "the hypothesis of evolution" instead of simply "evolution"? I just don't quite see the distinction, but maybe you're right.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Evolutionary theory is about how evolution happens. That evolution does happen is a fact: populations change over time.

[MustangGT]

You mean natural selection

Semantics games! I will cut you off and say that natural selection is a component of evolution and they are both true.

[Centurijohn]

You mean natural selection

Semantics games! I will cut you off and say that natural selection is a component of evolution and they are both true.

Alright then, I'll cut you off in return and say that the fact that the mechanism works doesn't constitute a proof that the theory making use of the machanism is true. Your turn.

[Sparx]

[Centurijohn]

That's funny. But in case you actually mean it, you'll present some evidence to back that claim up, right?

[vertigo]

Centurijohn is like a Christian, he sees things according to his world view and can't yet think beyond the confines of his self-imposed rationality. According to him, people agree all the time, and if they disagree, they work out their disagreements according to what the experts say. No one dares to have an opinion different from the status quo, they know their place. And they live happily ever after.

[Centurijohn]

Centurijohn is like a Christian, he sees things according to his world view and can't yet think beyond the confines of his self-imposed rationality.

Who doesn't see things according to his world view? And by the way, I'd call it a striving for rationality in my positions rather than "self-imposed rationality", and I can't see any reason to consider it inferior to non-rationality. Maybe you've got one in mind?

According to him, people agree all the time, and if they disagree, they work out their disagreements according to what the experts say. No one dares to have an opinion different from the status quo, they know their place. And they live happily ever after.

Perhaps you should adopt more of an evidence-based approach to your judgement of people and/or their positions, because that would help you avoid coming to completely unsupported or even contrafactual conclusions. In case you are interested in pursuing that strategy, feel free to present something to back up the notions you've just expressed or stop expressing them.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Last year, Dr. Henry Morgentaler was named to the Order of Canada, the nation's highest civilian honour. Obviously, I don't care a fig about who does and doesn't receive such honours (well, actually, I'm a little embarrassed that the members of Rush are recipients) but one can't help but be amused by some of the fallout from Morgentaler being invited to join the club, ie. previous recipients of the Order resigning from it.

A little bit of background for those who are unfamiliar with the story. For many years, Morgentaler risked imprisonment so that women in Canada could have access to abortions performed by qualified physicians in properly-equipped clinics. He openly admitted to performing thousands of "illegal" abortions and, consequently, faced a multitude of legal troubles. Ultimately, some time after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted, he was charged with violating the anti-abortion laws. The case eventually found it's way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court found that the law under which Morgentaler was charged was unconstitutional. So, in 1988, the law was struck down. Because it's still such a "hot button" issue, no federal Canadian government has dared to introduce new legislation regarding abortion. That's right: thanks to Morgentaler and the SCC, there is no law in Canada regarding abortion.

So -- and it does make me chuckle to think of it -- a number of previous recipients of the Order of Canada have resigned from the Order in protest against the honour going to Morgentaler. Recently, three more.

Look at this bozo. He's one of them.

Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte.jpg (51.89 KiB) Viewed 496 times

Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte

From his Wikipedia entry: Jean-Claude Turcotte (born June 26, 1936) is a Roman Catholic cardinal and Archbishop of Montréal. His full title is "Cardinal Priest of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament and the Holy Canadian Martyrs." Methinks they forgot to add "total fuckwit" to that title.

from http://www.canada.com/news/more+resign+ ... story.html

3 more resign from Order of Canada

Canwest News Service
June 1, 2009

OTTAWA — The Governor General has formally accepted the resignations of three members of the Order of Canada, a brief news release from her office said Monday.

Rene Racine, Jacqueline Richard and Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte have officially resigned their prestigious awards and Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean has formally "accepted" the resignations, the release said.

While the release didn't give a reason for the resignations, Turcotte, Montreal's archbishop, was one of several who announced their intentions to resign the order in protest over the decision last year to bestow Canada's highest civilian honour on abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler.

Jean said at the time, Morgentaler deserved the Order of Canada for "his commitment to increased health-care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations."

While pro-choice groups hailed the appointment as well-deserved and long-overdue, it stirred outrage among anti-abortion activists.

The Governor General's office announced in October 2008 that seven Order of Canada medals had been returned to protest Morgentaler's nomination, including former New Brunswick lieutenant governor Gilbert Finn, B.C. priest Lucien Larre, another anonymous Canadian and families of three deceased recipients.

The Order of Canada was created in 1967 to honour those who have "enriched the lives of others and made a difference to this country."

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

[vertigo]

Wow, I'd shun any award that was given to that bozo...