Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock

First of all, there is no such thing as the scientific method.

Now you have gone into full denial mode.

Additionally, I should like to point out that Einstein came up with his theory of relativity by imagining himself riding on a beam of light. This is not part and parcel of the so-called “scientific” method.

I guess you are unaware of all the scientific experiments that have been done to verify the theory of relativity? Again, you appear to be in full denial mode.

dwise1 writes: Whether loss of that ability is deleterious depends on whether they can still get that vitamin through their diet. If they cannot, then it is deleterious; if they can, then losing the ability to synthesize vitamin C is neutral, it doesn't matter. Why stop at guinea pigs? What about humans? We also have lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C.

As the human population has broken the 7 billion mark, I would love to see how Arriba defines 'detrimental' to also include 'exponential population growth'.

We have always eaten fruit and vegetables; more so than meat.
We rarely noticed that we could not survive without vitamin C.
The only real consequence of vitamin C dependency was that it initially limited our oceanic exploration.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi, Arriba.

Arriba writes: Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s imagine that we are living some 50 years ago and we capture an ex-Nazi concentration camp director. While we are speaking to him he informs us that he has proved that Jews have big noses because of sexual selection. While we carefully suppress our doubts even that Jews have big noses, we ask for more details and he reveals his experiment.

The vast majority of points you might ever want to make can be made effectively without referring to Nazis.

Arriba writes: Step 2. He amputates the noses of half of the male Jews.

You should really read the papers: this is not, in any way, analogous to the feather-clipping these peacock researchers did. What they did is clip off the 20 outermost eyespots.

See, the feathers of a peacock train overlap one another. So, you can cut the eyespots off a feather without leaving a gaping hole in the peacock's train, because the neighboring feathers overlap it. And, because the eyespots are never on the outermost edge of the feather-train, the "damage" only manifests as a gap between the feather-train edge and the outermost eyespots.

As you can from the photos below, that gap varies quite a lot naturally:

http://ibc.lynxeds.com/...atus/male-peacock-showing-his-tail
http://spelb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/peacock-9.jpg
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/birds/peacock-feathers.htm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peacock_Dance.jpg

So, clipping a peacock's feathers doesn't make them look "mutilated": it makes them look like a peacock with a smaller feather-train.

By comparison, amputating a nose doesn't make somebody look like someone with a small nose: it makes them look like somebody with a gaping open wound instead of a nose.

Arriba writes: Additionally, I should like to point out that Einstein came up with his theory of relativity by imagining himself riding on a beam of light. This is not part and parcel of the so-called “scientific” method. In fact, it’s not empirical at all. Yet you choose to give science the credit. Why is that?

There are no rules about how you come up with a hypothesis. You just have to come up with predictions that arise from it, and with a way to test those predictions. Einstein came up with the prediction, and some other physicists tested them.

Science.

Edited by Blue Jay, : Disable smilies so my photo links would work

Arriba writes: Nowadays, of course, we have science which has made wonderful contributions to our lives… like chemotherapy – that magical anti-cancer procedure that is all of 2.1 percent effective (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849 ). Forgive me if I’m underwhelmed.

Did you come to the conclusion that chemotherapy is "all of 2.1 percent effective" by trusting the research in a paper which, according to you, is likely to be inaccurate? And have you decided that none of the other factors increasing the 5 year survival rate are related to science?

Life expectancy in Peru

Is none of this 20 year+ increase in life expectancy in your country due to increase in our knowledge of the physical world?

Arriba writes: My ancestors were gold plating things with a thickness of no more than a few microns more than 3,000 years ago without doing science.

How did you date this behaviour without using science?

Arriba writes: Coca and tobacco was cultivated and shipped round the globe at the time of the Egyptians landing in their tombs for modern-day archaeologists to find and all without science.

Since when was archaeology not a science? And how is the identity of the remnants of plants thousands of years old established without science? And could you give us a link to the source for this interesting knowledge you have acquired about ancient coco and tobacco trade? And if your source isn't a supposedly unreliable scientific research paper, what would it be?

Edited by bluegenes, : fixed link

Arriba writes: And that’s just one of the reasons why Galileo was such a great scientist, right?

Are you suggesting that Galileo was not a scientist because his first hypothesis was wrong? Assuming that your version of the story is accurate, Galileo was certainly part of the scientific process. Even if he didn't come up with the "correct" answer himself, his hypothesis prompted others to question his reasoning and, eventaully, to propose better hypotheses.

Yes, that is how science works, by being wrong and then figuring out why you were wrong.

Bias is essentially non-existent in science, thanks to peer-review. Also, you have not addressed the idea of the tail helping the peacock in the past, and it is a vestigal structure that is (if my theory prevails) slowly losing its luster. Also, it is impossible to tell what the peahens desire. Simplifying it to "length, color, symmetry" is far to simplistic. For example, they may see more colors than we, or perhaps go for certain designs, or perhaps it is a combination of if the male has the right stuff and struts it well enough.

How many curly-haired American Indians have you heard of?

Heard of?
Not sure.
Seen?
At least hundreds.

Ever heard of Crazy Horse?

quote:

---

His mother's nickname for him was "Curly"

---

Source

There is also one of the scouts from Custers forces that watched the Battle of Little Bighorn from a distance. He was known as Curly.

Your claim is ridiculous and was refuted within 5 seconds of using Google. As seen at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/266... peer review does not eliminate bias, but is itself biased.

Galileo was not a scientist for several reasons. First of all, the word scientist hadn't even been invented by the time of his death. Second, the supposed pre-runners of scientists were known as "natural philosophers" but Galileo wasn't a natural philosopher. He was a medical school dropout turned mathematician. In fact, he gained his first teaching position by using Dante's Inferno to calculate the wingspan of Satan. After three years his contract was not renewed.

Galileo was not a scientist for several reasons. First of all, the word scientist hadn't even been invented by the time of his death.

Nor had the word "vertebrate". Is that a proof he wasn't a vertebrate?

Second, the supposed pre-runners of scientists were known as "natural philosophers" but Galileo wasn't a natural philosopher. He was a medical school dropout turned mathematician. In fact, he gained his first teaching position by using Dante's Inferno to calculate the wingspan of Satan. After three years his contract was not renewed.

How does any of this, if true (you might supply references), stop him from being a scientist? He practiced science. This is what scientists do.

You declare him to be a "mathematician" instead, but was he a "mathematician" when he discovered the moons of Jupiter? Was that a mathematical or a scientific discovery?

Arriba writes: Your claim is ridiculous and was refuted within 5 seconds of using Google. As seen at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/266... peer review does not eliminate bias, but is itself biased.

Peer review was developed to reduce the inevitable biases of the individual mind.

A 60 watt bulb does not eliminate all darkness, but it does help you to see.

And 5 seconds of using Google refutes nothing--it only shows you what you sought.

Galileo wasn't a natural philosopher. He was a medical school dropout turned mathematician. In fact, he gained his first teaching position by using Dante's Inferno to calculate the wingspan of Satan. After three years his contract was not renewed.

Galileo, after twenty years of university teaching, applied for a court position with the Grand Duke of Tuscany. In making his application he included a significant and unusual request. "... As to the title of my position," he wrote, "I desire that in addition to the title of 'mathematician,' his Highness will annex that of 'philosopher,' for I may claim to have studied for a greater number of years in philosophy than months in pure mathematics." --- Stillman Drake, Essays on Galileo and the History and Philosophy of Science, Volume 1

Peer review was developed to reduce the inevitable biases of the individual mind.

Multiple reviewers also help keep each other honest.

Every paper I have submitted for publication has been returned for revision. The peer review process, in my cases, has greatly improved my papers. The reviewers have pointed out errors that I missed and flaws in my arguments. In some cases a reviewer has disagreed with my methods or conclusions and there has been back and forth discussions that led to clarity.

When you write about something that is really new or that challenges widely held views, you had better really have your shit together. Your materials and methods and your data and discussion need to be rock solid and your presentation needs to be easy to understand.

The peer review process is about making papers as good as they can possibly be, not rejecting them because of bias or to suppress dissenting views.

It is not perfect, but without it scientific knowledge could not reliably be passed on.

Galileo was not a scientist for several reasons. First of all, the word scientist hadn't even been invented by the time of his death.

We've seen that reasoning suggested before, and I find it particularly pathetic and somewhat offensive.

Whatever Galileo's title was back in the 16-17th century, we discuss his work and life using the English language as it currently exists. If you have some reason to doubt that Galileo employed the scientific method to the scientific subject matter we now call physics, then let's hear about that.

Otherwise, trying to discredit Galileo by saying that the word scientist was not used during his day is somewhat pointless. Let's leave that stuff to languish on Catholic Church websites. Or can we assume that you have found some errors in Galileo's mathematics.

In fact, he gained his first teaching position by using Dante's Inferno to calculate the wingspan of Satan

I'm curious as to what your objection to such an endeavor might be?

One might also note that Isaac Newton practiced alchemy and that his investigations of light included probing behind his own eyes with needles.

ABE:

I thought this crap sounded familiar. It was your dumbass that spouted this mess earlier in this same thread. You also deny that Isaac Newton and Einstein were scientists. How about going for the Maxwell, Einstein, Newton trifecta?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.