Evolution has some splaining to do Lucy....

[DOTR]

I know tldr

 

[Syriusly]

We know more and more about the world, and science is the first to admit how much more we have to learn.
.

Your biggest threat to science comes from the marxists rather than creationists. The USSR, which claimed to be working to advance a materialist society, starved millions by shutting off research on genes and embracing the views of Lysenko.

I am not seeing marxists controlling much of anything today. The Soviets were not really marxists but absolutely agree that they abused science for their political ends. Who is left today? Cuba? Venezuela? Vietnam? None exactly threatening science.

 

[DOTR]

This paper is saying it evolved twice. Something happened that caused the 90% of animals now existing to appear.

Absolutely not. I havent read the paper as I said but if it is in any way reputable it will not claim life evolved twice.

 

[Mac1958]

We don't know where we came from for sure. Yet.

We have always made up stories and fables and gods to provide answers and guidance and comfort (and control), but we still don't know for sure.

Faith is fine. But it's not the same as fact.
.

 

[Asclepias]

This paper is saying it evolved twice. Something happened that caused the 90% of animals now existing to appear.

Absolutely not. I havent read the paper as I said but if it is in any way reputable it will not claim life evolved twice.

Maybe thats not the best term to use then but there appears to be a period of rapid evolution separate from the initial evolution.

 

[Syriusly]

We know more and more about the world, and science is the first to admit how much more we have to learn.
.

How about the leftist attacks on Psychiatry? The APA removed the scientific classification of homosexuality as a disease not because of new scientific evidence but because of a well funded and unrelenting attack by liberals.

As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled: "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Hell of a way to conduct science and medicine wouldnt you say?



NYTimes

Well this happens to be a favorite topic of mine- so let us discuss about how to 'conduct science and medicine'- and homosexuality.

So when did homosexuality first get described as a 'mental illness'- and based upon what medical evidence?

Until the 19th century- homosexuality was described as a sin- in the Western world where homosexual sodomy was described it was done in biblical terms- it was 'wrong' because the bible said so (sort of). Female homosexuality was largely ignored.

In the 19th century- homosexuality started getting described as a health issue- variably either a mental or physical disorder. What was this based upon? Well the opinions of various doctors writing at the time. Certainly not based upon any scientific testing.
LGBT Mental Health Syllabus

So where did the 'scientific classification' of Homosexuality as a mental disorder come from?

Essentially a bunch of psychiatrists decided that homosexuality was a mental disorder- and included it in the first DSM in 1952. DSM History

But there was no 'body of scientific evidence' to support the inclusion- it was the opinion of the authors in 1952.

And by 1971- 19 years later- the opinion of the authors was that the scientific evidence did not support homosexuality as a mental illness.

LGBT Mental Health Syllabus
Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons.


Some APA members, primarily psychoanalysts who continued to espouse pathologizing views of homosexuality, challenged the leadership of the APA by calling for a referendum of the entire APA membership. The decision to remove homosexuality was upheld by a 58% majority of voting APA members.

So as a person who supports science- I believe that medical diagnosis should be supported by scientific evidence. There was no scientific evidence to support the diagnosis in DSM 1, and by DSM 2, the evidence weighed against the diagnosis.

Just as the diagnosis for 'female hysteria' was not supported by the evidence and slipped away.

 

[Syriusly]

We know more and more about the world, and science is the first to admit how much more we have to learn.
.

Darwins ideas were rightfully attacked as ridiculous because he was a believer in blended inheritance (pangenesis). Turns out he was right on natural selection but wrong on the mechanism and the discovery of particulate inheritance solved that. But in the meantime was it right to so viciously attack Jenkin for pointing out that natural selection could not in any way shape or form work given what was known about inheritance at the time? He was right!

Darwin's ideas were not attacked because he was a believer in 'blended inheritance'- that was the predominate theory of the day. He was attacked by most for proposing that there was a mechanism other than God that created the species.

Darwin certainly didn't get everything right- but his publication got the wheels rolling in the right direction.

 

[DOTR]

So why haven't creatures "evolved" on Europa and Enceladus to walk upright and set up telescopes on their moons surface?

a) Why do you believe there is life on Europe and Enceladus?
b) And if there was life there- why would you expect that life to have telescopes?

There's absolutely 100% life on those 2 moons: octopus, coral and jellyfish, just like here.

Why haven't they "evolved" to mine and make cities and industries and walk on the surface?

Are you being serious?

If evolution works as supposed, then yes, complex intelligent life should be flourishing in our solar system.

But its not I wonder why?

 

[DOTR]

We know more and more about the world, and science is the first to admit how much more we have to learn.
.

Darwins ideas were rightfully attacked as ridiculous because he was a believer in blended inheritance (pangenesis). Turns out he was right on natural selection but wrong on the mechanism and the discovery of particulate inheritance solved that. But in the meantime was it right to so viciously attack Jenkin for pointing out that natural selection could not in any way shape or form work given what was known about inheritance at the time? He was right!

Darwin's ideas were not attacked because he was a believer in 'blended inheritance'- that was the predominate theory of the day. He was attacked by most for proposing that there was a mechanism other than God that created the species.

Darwin certainly didn't get everything right- but his publication got the wheels rolling in the right direction.

Ok Ill accept that. My point being that questioning science is not a crime.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

This paper is saying it evolved twice. Something happened that caused the 90% of animals now existing to appear.

Absolutely not. I havent read the paper as I said but if it is in any way reputable it will not claim life evolved twice.

It is a very complex paper discussing barcode clustering in mitochondrial DNA or some such. It is way way over my head. I can only assume the stated conclusion starting the thread is erroneous.

 

[Asclepias]

This paper is saying it evolved twice. Something happened that caused the 90% of animals now existing to appear.

Absolutely not. I havent read the paper as I said but if it is in any way reputable it will not claim life evolved twice.

It is a very complex paper discussing barcode clustering in mitochondrial DNA or some such. It is way way over my head. I can only assume the stated conclusion starting the thread is erroneous.

I just sent my daughter the link. I am going to see what she has to say about it.

 

[DOTR]

We know more and more about the world, and science is the first to admit how much more we have to learn.
.

How about the leftist attacks on Psychiatry? The APA removed the scientific classification of homosexuality as a disease not because of new scientific evidence but because of a well funded and unrelenting attack by liberals.

As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled: "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Hell of a way to conduct science and medicine wouldnt you say?



NYTimes

Well this happens to be a favorite topic of mine- so let us discuss about how to 'conduct science and medicine'- and homosexuality.

So when did homosexuality first get described as a 'mental illness'- and based upon what medical evidence?

Until the 19th century- homosexuality was described as a sin- in the Western world where homosexual sodomy was described it was done in biblical terms- it was 'wrong' because the bible said so (sort of). Female homosexuality was largely ignored.

In the 19th century- homosexuality started getting described as a health issue- variably either a mental or physical disorder. What was this based upon? Well the opinions of various doctors writing at the time. Certainly not based upon any scientific testing.
LGBT Mental Health Syllabus

So where did the 'scientific classification' of Homosexuality as a mental disorder come from?

Essentially a bunch of psychiatrists decided that homosexuality was a mental disorder- and included it in the first DSM in 1952. DSM History

But there was no 'body of scientific evidence' to support the inclusion- it was the opinion of the authors in 1952.

And by 1971- 19 years later- the opinion of the authors was that the scientific evidence did not support homosexuality as a mental illness.

LGBT Mental Health Syllabus
Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons.


Some APA members, primarily psychoanalysts who continued to espouse pathologizing views of homosexuality, challenged the leadership of the APA by calling for a referendum of the entire APA membership. The decision to remove homosexuality was upheld by a 58% majority of voting APA members.

So as a person who supports science- I believe that medical diagnosis should be supported by scientific evidence. There was no scientific evidence to support the diagnosis in DSM 1, and by DSM 2, the evidence weighed against the diagnosis.

Just as the diagnosis for 'female hysteria' was not supported by the evidence and slipped away.

Well its not my favorite. What I do know is that harassment was how it was removed. There can be no argument on that. Leftists use mass demonstrations overturn everything from elections to scientific consensus. I never denied the APA voted to change the definition. What I said was they did it under duress.

 

[Darkwind]

You would think if he had he would have shared one coherent story about how he did it.

And why didn't he mention the dinosaurs in the Bible?

I don't know...ask him...

Did he mention Slow Lorises in the Bible?

Yeah- your god buddy sure left a lot out.

How did those koala's get from Mt. Ararat to Australia?

I'll ask him when I see him.....since you won't be going to that place.... you likely won't have that chance..

Oh I am quite confident that I will never see your god- and that neither would you.

If your god existed.....well there is that whole 'don't bear false witness' thing that would exclude you.

The truth about atheist mass murder has really touched a nerve with you..... the truth burns you like holy water to a vampire...

LOL

The entire thread has him triggered. It must have hit too close to home.

 

[DOTR]

All that said...I know God created me and I am pleased with being baffled by it.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

This paper is saying it evolved twice. Something happened that caused the 90% of animals now existing to appear.

Absolutely not. I havent read the paper as I said but if it is in any way reputable it will not claim life evolved twice.

It is a very complex paper discussing barcode clustering in mitochondrial DNA or some such. It is way way over my head. I can only assume the stated conclusion starting the thread is erroneous.

I just sent my daughter the link. I am going to see what she has to say about it.

I hope she has a PhD in biochem or some related area.

 

[Asclepias]

This paper is saying it evolved twice. Something happened that caused the 90% of animals now existing to appear.

Absolutely not. I havent read the paper as I said but if it is in any way reputable it will not claim life evolved twice.

It is a very complex paper discussing barcode clustering in mitochondrial DNA or some such. It is way way over my head. I can only assume the stated conclusion starting the thread is erroneous.

I just sent my daughter the link. I am going to see what she has to say about it.

I hope she has a PhD in biochem or some related area.

Masters working on her PHD

 

[Syriusly]

We know more and more about the world, and science is the first to admit how much more we have to learn.
.

Darwins ideas were rightfully attacked as ridiculous because he was a believer in blended inheritance (pangenesis). Turns out he was right on natural selection but wrong on the mechanism and the discovery of particulate inheritance solved that. But in the meantime was it right to so viciously attack Jenkin for pointing out that natural selection could not in any way shape or form work given what was known about inheritance at the time? He was right!

Darwin's ideas were not attacked because he was a believer in 'blended inheritance'- that was the predominate theory of the day. He was attacked by most for proposing that there was a mechanism other than God that created the species.

Darwin certainly didn't get everything right- but his publication got the wheels rolling in the right direction.

Ok Ill accept that. My point being that questioning science is not a crime.

Of course not!

Remember- Darwin hesitated for years to publish his work for fear of a backlash- he only published when he did because he heard someone else was going to publish.

Many of the people with the most influential ideas in science have feared some sort of persecution for letting their ideas become public.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't know...ask him...

Did he mention Slow Lorises in the Bible?

Yeah- your god buddy sure left a lot out.

How did those koala's get from Mt. Ararat to Australia?

I'll ask him when I see him.....since you won't be going to that place.... you likely won't have that chance..

Oh I am quite confident that I will never see your god- and that neither would you.

If your god existed.....well there is that whole 'don't bear false witness' thing that would exclude you.

The truth about atheist mass murder has really touched a nerve with you..... the truth burns you like holy water to a vampire...

LOL

The entire thread has him triggered. It must have hit too close to home.

The OP is indicative of what happens when smoke drugs too early in life. You burn brain cells and have a hard time with reading comprehension.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

This paper is saying it evolved twice. Something happened that caused the 90% of animals now existing to appear.

Absolutely not. I havent read the paper as I said but if it is in any way reputable it will not claim life evolved twice.

It is a very complex paper discussing barcode clustering in mitochondrial DNA or some such. It is way way over my head. I can only assume the stated conclusion starting the thread is erroneous.

I just sent my daughter the link. I am going to see what she has to say about it.

I hope she has a PhD in biochem or some related area.

Masters working on her PHD

Excellent. Good for her.

 

[Syriusly]

We know more and more about the world, and science is the first to admit how much more we have to learn.
.

How about the leftist attacks on Psychiatry? The APA removed the scientific classification of homosexuality as a disease not because of new scientific evidence but because of a well funded and unrelenting attack by liberals.

As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled: "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Hell of a way to conduct science and medicine wouldnt you say?



NYTimes

Well this happens to be a favorite topic of mine- so let us discuss about how to 'conduct science and medicine'- and homosexuality.

So when did homosexuality first get described as a 'mental illness'- and based upon what medical evidence?

Until the 19th century- homosexuality was described as a sin- in the Western world where homosexual sodomy was described it was done in biblical terms- it was 'wrong' because the bible said so (sort of). Female homosexuality was largely ignored.

In the 19th century- homosexuality started getting described as a health issue- variably either a mental or physical disorder. What was this based upon? Well the opinions of various doctors writing at the time. Certainly not based upon any scientific testing.
LGBT Mental Health Syllabus

So where did the 'scientific classification' of Homosexuality as a mental disorder come from?

Essentially a bunch of psychiatrists decided that homosexuality was a mental disorder- and included it in the first DSM in 1952. DSM History

But there was no 'body of scientific evidence' to support the inclusion- it was the opinion of the authors in 1952.

And by 1971- 19 years later- the opinion of the authors was that the scientific evidence did not support homosexuality as a mental illness.

LGBT Mental Health Syllabus
Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons.


Some APA members, primarily psychoanalysts who continued to espouse pathologizing views of homosexuality, challenged the leadership of the APA by calling for a referendum of the entire APA membership. The decision to remove homosexuality was upheld by a 58% majority of voting APA members.

So as a person who supports science- I believe that medical diagnosis should be supported by scientific evidence. There was no scientific evidence to support the diagnosis in DSM 1, and by DSM 2, the evidence weighed against the diagnosis.

Just as the diagnosis for 'female hysteria' was not supported by the evidence and slipped away.

Well its not my favorite. What I do know is that harassment was how it was removed. There can be no argument on that. Leftists use mass demonstrations overturn everything from elections to scientific consensus. I never denied the APA voted to change the definition. What I said was they did it under duress.

There can be no argument on that

Clearly there can be.

There was either a valid scientific reason for homosexuality to be called a mental illness or there wasn't.

Do you believe that there was any scientific evidence that supported the conclusion that homosexuality was a mental illness?

If so- what was it?