What got me when I read the strip, not to mention most of the comments that were not flames or jokes, is that Trudeau committed an irish bull(as I believe it is calle). Creationists say that the world is 7000 or so years old and everything was created in lockstep and the ark, etc, operated by the same mechanism as our technology today. It just ain’t so. To say that a bacterium developed resistance over fifty years has evolved--well evolved means changed--and this is a change. But has the bacterium changed into a spirochete? No. It is still a “onecelled” organism with a sophisticated multipart flagellum, that is, with irreducible complexity solvable only by a very good engineer. Thanks, papa!

I almost was able to understand that last comment—it sounds like he’s parroting the IDiot argument of irreducible complexity. If so then Russell needs to go study up on Evolution before he bothers trying to communicate in the English language on this topic again. The whole irreducibility argument has been busted many, many times over.

With regards to the ID vs. Evolution arguement, I have nothing to add that hasn’t been said a billion times. It’s ridiculous to blindly adhere to either side without critically examining the facts. That said, I would call myself a Darwinist.

I would like to respond to Daryl’s second comment. I personally view “cutthroat capitalism” as redundant. I believe that even people in favor of unrestricted capitalism would agree that capitalism does not require an “all for one and one for all” mentality. Although I personally believe that capitalism cannot benefit all of mankind, this statement does not mean that laissez-faire cannot possibly create a just society (that would be pretty pretentious of me to assume som wouldn’t it?).

That said, analogy of economic and political ogranization to biological evolution is still a bit far-fetched. Even if you assume that a perfect analogy can be made between the economy and the ecosystem (don’t be confused with the similarity of their names) there are still some serious shortcomings. First of all, the spider is only improving with respect to the resistance of its prey. It wouldn’t need acid if the insects died when they were shot up with ketchup. The resistance/toxicity relationship is not necesarilly benefitting either the spider or the prey. When it comes to the rest of the animal kingdom, nobody knows who else this relationship will benefit.

As an anarchist / free person supporter, I think that economic freedom doesn’t always necesarilly translate into justice. I haven’t yet seen much evidence that capitalist economic policy can be a good thing, but I know that unrestricted government power can’t. Either way, I’d be interested in learning more about free market thought. Although I don’t know much about business practices, it makes sense to me that a business is likely to make more money if it, you know, charges for it’s work. Although I have some serious problems with the FDA (not just its view on marjiuana, which I don’t smoke), I don’t know how private companies could effectively replace the few positive features it does exhibit. I’d be interested to hear a more in-depth analysis of this.

Daryl-I know that drug consumers would be better off if we simply eliminated the FDA.  Over time, private certifying authorities would emerge to attest that this drug or that drug is “safe and effective�?.

Final proof that Daryl needs to read more. Starting with the dictionary definition of ‘Cartel’.  That’s if he can find time to read it between smoking his Marlboro’ while eating his Big Mac in his Ford Pinto.

I enjoy Doonesbury very much.  However, this cartoon merely repeats Indoctrination and not Science.
Evolution (Macro) is the gaining of Genetic Information)
Adaptation (Micro-Evolution) is the loss of Genetic Info.

The case of TB is from Adaptation. ALL Scientists on BOTH sides of the “Big Debate” believe in Adaptation.  Heavily researched and provable.

When people use Adaptation as proof of Macro-Evolution they are either misguided, mis-informed, or being intellectually dis-honest.

Gene, it’s clear you’re just repeating the same talking points as the IDiots. There’s more than enough evidence out there in support of macro evolution. Your definitions of macro and micro evolution are hilariously bad.

Go out and actually study up on what the current theory of evolution actually is, from Biologists and not Christian Apologists, and then come back and try again.

Read up on it?  Sooooooooooooooooo, you are claiming that TB resistance is NOT from Adaptation which is what I stated?

I only commented that people should not use Adaptation for proof of something else.

Interesting.  I think it might be you that needs to do a “tad” more reading.

For the record you are saying that TB Resistance is not from Adaptation?

Gene comes back to try again without being prepared:

Read up on it?  Sooooooooooooooooo, you are claiming that TB resistance is NOT from Adaptation which is what I stated?

That’s not what I claimed at all and anyone with at least a modicum of common sense can see that for themselves.

I said nothing about your statement on TB. What I did say was that your definitions for micro and macro evolution were laughable and that anyone who has actually studied the theory would already know that.

I only commented that people should not use Adaptation for proof of something else.

Considering your apparent ignorance of what the theory says it seems odd that you should dictate what does and doesn’t constitute proof.

Interesting.  I think it might be you that needs to do a “tad” more reading.

I’m certainly no expert on the theory of evolution, but it’s probably safe to say it’s more in-depth than what you’re displaying so far.

For the record you are saying that TB Resistance is not from Adaptation?

Your ability to remain fixated on a point no one was arguing is impressive indeed.

Your ability to remain fixated on a point no one was arguing is impressive indeed.

The Doonsbury cartoon is on MultiDrug Resistant TB which is caused by Adaptation.  That was what I commented on.  If this is some kind of threat to you, then I guess your “knee jerk” ranting is understandable. No one brought up the Bible, except you.  No one brought up I.D, except you.

I only mentioned that people should not use examples of Adaptation for something else. No more, no less.

Gene tries again…

The Doonsbury cartoon is on MultiDrug Resistant TB which is caused by Adaptation.  That was what I commented on.  If this is some kind of threat to you, then I guess your “knee jerk” ranting is understandable. No one brought up the Bible, except you.  No one brought up I.D, except you.

And I commented on your apparent lack of understanding of the theory of evolution as evidenced by your previous missive. You’re right, however, in that I did make an assumption that you’re an IDiot.

I only mentioned that people should not use examples of Adaptation for something else. No more, no less.

Except that adaptation is one part of the theory of evolution and thus the Doonesbury cartoon is right on the money. The fact that you would dispute this just makes you look like a moron.

Except that adaptation is one part of the theory of evolution and thus the Doonesbury cartoon is right on the money. The fact that you would dispute this just makes you look like a moron.

No it doesn’t. Adaptation is the result of a loss of genetic information which is what I stated. Any Scientist on either side of the fence knows this and would not argue about it. Why you should argue about it is a mystery.

Why do you keep harping on the Bible anyway? The fact that you continue to do so when it is irrelevant can be seen as an example of the noun that ends your last msg.

Gene has come back for more:

No it doesn’t. Adaptation is the result of a loss of genetic information which is what I stated. Any Scientist on either side of the fence knows this and would not argue about it. Why you should argue about it is a mystery.

“Loss of genetic information” is not a requirement of adaptation and is not part of the definition of adaptation.

Adaptation is any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to live in its environment. That could conceivably be the result of a loss of genetic material, but it could also be the result of a gain or even just a change in the genetic material.

Why do you keep harping on the Bible anyway? The fact that you continue to do so when it is irrelevant can be seen as an example of the noun that ends your last msg.

Looking back over my last few comments it’s clear to see I’ve not brought the Bible up once. I find it amusing that you seem to think I’m harping on it when this is the first time I’ve even typed the word in our conversation.

Ah, I see why you think I’m harping on the Bible now. You’re reading my signature, which is automatically appended to my messages, and assuming I’m typing it repeatedly. That’s pretty fucking funny.

Seriously dude, if you can’t figure out what a signature is or that it’s not part of the conversation, how do you expect to convince anyone that your argument has any real thought behind it? Hell, for that matter, it’s a quote from Mark Twain so it’s not even anything I’ve said personally.

Hell, for that matter, it’s a quote from Mark Twain so it’s not even anything I’ve said personally.

Seriously dude,

I think the exact opposite is the case.
Otherwise why keep using it (as a signature)?

And I think that many things that people attribute to Adaptation might be the result of Exaptation.  Not all Scientists agree on it.  Maybe they should consult you and your apparent omnipotence in this area.

I’m just passing through and will keep on surfing.
Have a great day!

Gene tries again…

I think the exact opposite is the case.
Otherwise why keep using it (as a signature)?

Because it’s automatically inserted, as I said previously. If I change the signature in my profile it’ll change in every comment I’ve ever listed. Just like magic.

And I think that many things that people attribute to Adaptation might be the result of Exaptation.

Exaptation is simply one form of adaptation. It’s clear you don’t understand the word adaptation.

Not all Scientists agree on it.

But most biologists do. The theory of evolution is well established with over 150 years of evidence behind it.

Maybe they should consult you and your apparent omnipotence in this area.

You have no sense of irony, do you.

Not all Scientists agree on it.
But most biologists do.

You object to “not all” and respond with “But most”

I have a sense of irony.
Do you have a sense of the English language?

Exaptation is simply one form of adaptation. It’s clear you don’t understand the word adaptation.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5cExaptations.shtml

Evolution 101:
An “exaptation” is just one example of a characteristic that evolved, but that isn’t considered an adaptation. Stephen Gould and Elizabeth Vrba1 proposed vocabulary to let biologists talk about features that are and are not adaptations:

(They don’t call it Evolution 101 for nothing 0:-D)

Even the lame Wikipedia agrees with Stephen Gould, Elizabeth, and (I’m sure you’ve noticed by now) NOT with you.

However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.[97] One example is the African lizard Holapsis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[

Gene struggles to grasp basic conversation with:

You object to “not all” and respond with “But most”

Did I say I objected to it? No, I didn’t say that. You’re right that there are some scientists out there who will disagree with the theory of evolution—for some reason a large portion of them tend to be Engineers—I’m pointing out that the scientists most qualified to judge the evidence, biologists, are generally in agreement that evolution is real. 

I have a sense of irony.
Do you have a sense of the English language?

Not with the way in which your utilizing it, no. You tend to speak in fragments and incomplete ideas and then act like you’ve said something significant.

Even the lame Wikipedia agrees with Stephen Gould, Elizabeth, and (I’m sure you’ve noticed by now) NOT with you.

Yep, you’ve got me on that one. I didn’t bother to take the time to refresh my memory before responding.

Not that it matters, you’re only providing support for the theory of evolution, not against it. Again the irony of citing Stephen Gould when trying to claim that macro evolution doesn’t happen is very amusing indeed.

Not that it matters, you’re only providing support for the theory of evolution, not against it. Again the irony of citing Stephen Gould when trying to claim that macro evolution doesn’t happen is very amusing indeed.

I did not claim that Macro-Evolution does not happen.  I stated it does not happen with the TB virus. And people should not confuse the two.  It is UN-scientific.

Which is true!

I’m pointing out that the scientists most qualified to judge the evidence, biologists, are generally in agreement that evolution is real.

I quoted Stephen Gould.

You keep arguing about things that no one is arguing about.  Talk about fixation!  This knee jerk ranting does not help your case. When evidence is faulty.  You follow science and say so.

Evolutionists exposed things like Pildown Man.  Did that mean they were rejecting Evolution?  NO!  Merely pointing out frauds/mistakes or whatever and moving on.  I did the same with Doonesbury.  Pointed out an error, a mistake, and now I find it is :

“CIRCLE THE WAGONS, WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!”

Not true at all.  AND that kind of mentality does not help Science progress.  You go where the evidence leads you and confront the good, the bad, the ugly, and the inconvenient.

You certainly are an interesting character, Gene. You show up and make some nonsense statements about macro and micro evolution and then claim that you’re only debating what the Doonesbury strip used as a punchline. Nothing you’ve provided so far has rebutted the punchlines statement of the fact that TB has evolved. Whether that evolution was on a micro or macro scale or the result of adaptation is a moot point. The fact remains that it has evolved and has become drug resistant in the process.

Adaptation and exaptation are both parts of evolution. Doonesbury makes no claims about whether it was adaptation or exaptation that resulted in the drug resistant version. He simple states that TB has evolved which is entirely true.

Yes, I am a character.  And when it comes to Science I am going to hold people’s footsies to the fire no matter what side of the fence they are on.

The fact is that there IS A BIG difference between the loss of genetic information and the gaining of genetic information.  When you use one to prove the other, OR vice versa, it is UN-scientific no matter who does it and where.

If we are going to progress in Science, we will do it by embracing the Scientific Method and not Ideology.  And that applies to everyone.  There is too much of it out there.  Too much “Circling the Wagons” and not enough people looking for facts.

Two plus two equals FOUR” And it remains four whether we get the answer from a Scientist, a Mathematician, G. Bush (if he has a calculator handy!) Hilary or Slick Willie.  It stays FOUR. and we should be looking for it whenever possible!

Gene returns for more…

The fact is that there IS A BIG difference between the loss of genetic information and the gaining of genetic information.  When you use one to prove the other, OR vice versa, it is UN-scientific no matter who does it and where.

And you’re right back to spouting nonsense once again.

The rest of your comment ends up being ironic considering the nonsense you just got done spewing.

Stop labeling it nonsense and explain WHY it is nonsense.

They are two separate things.  I do get tired of Ideology and labels.  There is far too much of it out there.
You cannot use one as proof of the other. No matter who you are, what you believe, or what side of the fence you are on.

And two plus two is FOUR no matter what the source.

Gene, try Googling “gene duplication, followed by point mutations”

/doing Gene’s homework for him

/doing Gene’s homework for him

Such lameness.

A guy on this site lectures me that there is NO difference between Adaptation and Exaptation. And that I need to do more reading. Implies that I am moronic:

And then I had to cut and paste from STEPHEN GOULD, Evolution 101 and even Wikipedia to show him how wrong and lame it was.

And all I get in return is labels and Ideology.

I’m outta here.  You guys can continue to argue and label and ideologize.

And when you are finished two plus two is still four whether it comes from Gould or anyone else.