Any internet forum poster who has thousands of posts calling other posters idiots is an e-tough guy.
wow, you are really obsessed.
Again, I referenced you being "butthurt".
You came back with something along the lines of "lol, bisexual reproduction".
Please feel free to link whatever you like. Watching posters like you self own is great entertainment.
...incredible....
Unless you can provide a dictionary stating as much, I will say no it's not.
You being an idiot is more a truth than me being an "e-tough guy".
Calling faceless anonymous internet posters idiots and failures because they're opinion doesn't coincide with yours indeed makes you an e-tough guy.
You not being able to see that is actually priceless.
LOL you referenced my position on evolution as being the reason.
Again, I referenced you being "butthurt".
I said you don't know about evolution or this debate and don't have any kind of qualification to say that.
Not surprisingly, you deny it or simply don't understand what happened.
It is incredible just how far you're willing to go even when you've been proven ignorant on this issue....incredible....
Calling a faceless anonymous poster that calls a published dictionaries "random" because it doesn't coincide with his argument an idiot does not make me an e tough guy.Calling faceless anonymous internet posters idiots and failures because they're opinion doesn't coincide with yours indeed makes you an e-tough guy.
You not being able to see that is actually priceless.
It just means I have no problem telling you that you are being an idiot as you can't seem to or don't want to recognize it yourself.
You continually acting the idiot by disregarding the term even though it has been used in published works long before I started posting in this thread is greatness.
You not being able to see how you and phenomanul have been idiotic in this thread is actually priceless.
Exactly. I said you were butthurt because you were getting pwned in this thread.
You brought up "bisexual reproduction" in that thread, not me.
Not surprisingly you fail to understand or comprehend what is being said.
You saying I have been proven ignorant is extremely ignorant on your part.It is incredible just how far you're willing to go even when you've been proven ignorant on this issue.
What is really incredible is how many times you have tried to discredit Saunders 3rd edition Veterinarian Dictionary as being a real dictionary.
Only an idiot would try more than once after I clearly showed it is legit in the simplest way possible by cutting and pasting the link, definition and even a picture of the cover.
You are an idiot.
more e-badass Blake bull
This thread is turning into an argument against evolution.
Just watched the first 3 videos. Fantastic.
edit - just watched them all and it was a terrific lecture.
By the way, by the end of the lecture he makes the case that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive - and uses a clip of him being interviewed on the Colbert Report to support it.
Nicely done.
Last edited by Mark in Austin; 02-22-2010 at 01:15 PM.
I thought the discussion of Phillip Johnson's "wedge strategy" was interesting, but all too brief. The idea of actively marketing the notion that evolution and religion are in direct opposition in order to promote a world-view that seeks to:
andDefeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies.
...seems so bloody loathsome, ignorant, and useless a position.Replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God
He starts with the flawed premise that science causes what amounts to depravity and divests the world of it's spiritual meaning (I guess he never met a scientist given that those guys, as a class, are more profoundly aware of the mysterious nature of reality than the average fundamentalist), then has the hubris to disseminate this giant failure of reason to ignoramuses like himself to create a pointless, counter-productive climate of antagonism towards education. He's preaching stupidity! Straight no chaser!
Most mystifying of all is that this isn't a yokel from the hills of West Virginnie, it's a law professor at UC Berkely! One of the better science colleges in the country! WTF!?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
not really.
just more e-crying on your part that I'm e-bullying you.
or an argument for de-evolution.
C'mon! I know you guys can make this thread reach 1,000!!!
The internet badass has spoken
that's what he meant e-badass
Not believing in evolution is for me like not believing there is air around us.
I am not trying to be insultive, but I sincerely believe that.
Believing that the world is 10 000 years old goes into a separate category that is hard to describe...
the internet cryer is still crying.
de-evolution is not the same thing as an argument against evolution.
your reading comprehension skills are very low, e-cryer.
way to help meet the goal!!!
care to fill him in on your joke snackbar?
no, not really... I'm not looking to kick your ass. I'm just simply calling you an idiot and you are e-crying about it.
why don't you go ahead and fill me in on his joke.care to fill him in on your joke snackbar?
Ricky Gervais on creation of man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlv4I...eature=related
This is a long one fellas...
I don’t think you’re trying to be purposefully misleading… but this statement is incorrect (and it’s the second time you’ve implied as much). Macro-evolution cannot predict much of anything (in an applied sense)… it is a theory that was constructed to explain the history of our biodiversity; and can only posit vague and non-testable assumptions about the future of any given species... unless of course you feel that the rise of X-Men and ‘mutants’ is imminent, because macro-evolution predicts that this is a possible outcome for any given genome (“Cambrian Explosion” anyone?).
It doesn’t matter if the evolutionary theory is monophyletic or polyphyletic in nature, if the coding for certain ubiquitous proteins is established for all organisms (prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multi-cellular organisms alike), or if phylogenetic relationships are established between different species living today (some which surprisingly contradict the classical relationships long thought to have existed using evaluations of morphology and the fossil record). All a theory like macro-evolution can positively state is that our genetic make-up changes over time. Belief in genetic drift and mega evolution thus provides very little predictive power with regards to the betterment of mankind… sci-fi aside, of course.
In other words, Neo-Darwinian evolution is one way to view our past… but it is not the only way… more importantly; it can’t make but general statements about our genetic future.
For example, the fields of molecular genetics and microbiology don’t require a committed belief in evolution for work in those fields to be of actual, measureable, benefit. One can splice genes into the genomes of simple bacteria (using mRNA segments, transposons or retro-viral insertion techniques) to mass produce any number of enzymes and proteins such as lactase and insulin. One can modify bacterial genomes (through the transformational vectors supplied by the aforementioned techniques) to help us decompose waste and even petroleum products at refinery waste-water treatment plants… The applied-science benefits in these fields has little to do with whether or not the scientists/bioengineers involved believe in the concept of universal common ancestry that is proposed by the theory of macro-evolution. More importantly, the transgenesis methods that make all of this possible have little to do with that belief… the techniques for the coinjection of mRNA segments, DNA transposons and retro-viral segments were developed by studying the behavior of mRNA/tRNA/transposon segments and the behavior of retro-viruses in living organisms. Thus, the techniques themselves have absolutely nothing to do with the predetermined belief that all living organisms share common ancestry. Unfortunately, the academic world at large looks at all these applications and tries to claim them as victories for the evolutionary process. Nothing could be more misleading… or a flat out lie.
Fact is, every time you all make comment regarding the ignorance, and stubbornness of those who don’t hold the macro-evolutionary theory to be truth, suggesting that they’re holding back scientific progress for instead latching on to theologically-induced beliefs;
1) you all do so ignoring that the real-world application benefits of macro-evolutionary beliefs hold very little weight in a practical sense (i.e. you all routinely overrate and overstate the theory’s importance to the scientific knowledge-set).
2) you all mistakenly assume that the theory is being criticized for minor, unimportant flaws… flaws which don’t necessarily compromise the evolutionary premise itself… and hence ‘feel’ justified for continuing to hold on to those beliefs.
3) you all assume that since the theory of evolution is taught widespread, that by default it is the best explanation, and that as the best explanation… conflicting viewpoints hold no merit whatsoever.
4) you all likewise assume that en-masse support for the theory means that it must be true, “fallacy of consensus gentium,” (popular belief in anthropomorphic climate change is the redux dynamic of this phenomenon)
5) and that since this at-large support exists for the theory that quantifiable, testable data must also exist.
6) ironically, you all unfortunately act out of ignorance yourselves if you believe all that to be true and then call others out for disbelief. What’s worse is that certain people take a belligerent and spiteful position on the matter despite the fact that the evolutionary framework is based on nothing more than a slew of assumptions and not the hard evidence they claim.
Concerning assumption No. 4… this kind of diatribe - stating that evolution is a “fact” accepted by “all educated persons” except a “fundamentalist minority” - can make a real impact on people. The more people say it… the more others believe it to be true. I have no quarrel with you or Blake or anyone here that says that most “knowledgeable experts” (read that as “most scientists”) accept organic evolution, macro-evolution… etc... But my response is: So what?! Any argument based on a mere “counting of heads” is a fallacious argument.
No doubt, there are many “knowledgeable experts” who believe in evolution. And there are no doubt many reasons why that is so… Part of the reason for that, however, might just be: “that most educated people believe in evolution simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution.” Numerous people, including many scientists in unrelated fields, fall into this category... For the past several decades (almost a century), evolution has been taught from kindergarten to graduate school as a “fact that all reputable scientists believe.” As a result, people often believe that if they, too, wish to be viewed as “educated,” it is practically a prerequisite that they believe in evolution. As mentioned earlier, this dynamic is once again repeating itself with the politicized belief of anthropomorphic climate change. And for those of us who actually take notice the scientific-community isn’t always right… or completely honest.
Truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even when accepted only by a small minority. The history of science is replete with such examples… If something is true, stating it a thousand times does not make it any truer. Similarly, if something is false, stating it a thousand times does not make it true… In an earlier post I described the difference between absolute TRUTH and truth. Unfortunately, Blake got his ‘panties in a wad’because I attempted to define absolute TRUTH as how ‘reality’ was perceived by GOD. As if any mention of divinity somehow undermined the message I was trying to relate… which was that absolute TRUTH is inherently greater than our human perspective precisely because our perspective is very limited. The fact that I attributed that ultimate perspective as belonging to GOD was beside the point (I am en led to that opinion).
Furthermore, on the subject of truth, the prestige of a position’s advocates has nothing to do with whether or not the fact in question is true or false. For example, it is incorrect to suggest that because a Nobel laureate or a renowned college professor states something that the statement is true by definition (my earlier references to Hawking and Einstein unfortunately fall into that category against my intention). Nevertheless, I should note that not all prominent scientists believe/believed in evolution.
As for my rigidity concerning the matter of ‘truth’… you ought to know by now that the controversy is entirely perspective driven. Part of the problem is that you all play the numbers game above non-stop (especially the drive-by posters) as if that were the weight of the argument itself. The other problem is that you all truly believe that the scientific community-at-large cannot be wrong. Sure, you all say, “they’re continually working to get things right – that’s how science works” – in your minds however, this process never applies to the premise surrounding GOD’s existence. Why would it? The presupposition of GOD’s existence or non-existence… lies entirely outside the scientific realm. And yet the primary basis for disbelief amongst most atheists today is founded on ‘scientific’ objections. You can’t have it both ways.
I hate to break it to you all… but the idea of strict objectivity in science is little more than a myth. While scientists like to think of themselves as broad-minded, unprejudiced paragons of virtue, the fact is that they, too, on occasion, suffer from bouts of bias, bigotry, and presuppositionalism. In this case… if not for an a priori commitment to the established belief that life arose on its own, the mechanistic means by which that life diversified remains second fiddle to that core assumption (that the origin of life itself arose from purposeless, chance processes). Those wishing to disassociate the two theories fail to reconcile that even evolution had to have a beginning, and that at ‘point zero’ evolution is highly intertwined with the ‘origins’ question because the very processes which produced life had to also lay the groundwork for evolution. Since questions surrounding the subject of “origins” can not be quantifiably addressed using the scientific method, what then is the point of making everyone believe that hard data exists for the assumed linkage between the different phylogenetic families? Or for making everyone believe that we all share a common ancestor?
Much of what we observe in nature is fully compatible with the claim that multiple lineages were created independently and endowed with a degree of genetic adaptability (hint hint Blake, my plausible alternative belief). I can’t prove Divine intervention any more than the next guy can prove life arose from scratch. Nevertheless, no hard data exists to support the claim that creatures outside of those lineages share common ancestry with each other. Canines are canines, bears are bears, pachyderms are pachyderms… etc… All we know is that there is an element of diversification within those classes stemming from adaptation and nothing more, but there is no real, measureable, evidence to support the claim that the major phylogenetic orders endured evolutionary divergence sometime in the past.
LOL at “fall short of the mark”… and then using genetics research as your pitch to state your claim.
As alluded earlier, modern genetics research has actually introduced controversial twists to the classical relationships long thought to have existed between taxonomic families. These relationships, developed by using morphology and assessments of the fossil record differ greatly from the phylogenetic relationships identified by studying the genomes of today’s organisms.
I’ll tell you what… many more flaws in the evolutionary premise have surfaced since the discovery of DNA and not the other way around (support for evolution)… But I could almost bet that the majority here, in academia and ‘the scientific community-at-large’ believe the opposite to be true.
Evolutionary proponents, for example, like to point out the similarities between the chromosomal counts of different species and the genomic similarities between them (i.e. ‘X’ species is 86% genetically similar to ‘Y’ species), but they largely ignore the inconvenient questions brought about by other mind-blowing discoveries in the field of molecular genetics. For example, it was long believed that we were linearly ‘hard-wired’ i.e. each of our genes coded for a particular protein/enzyme (1 gene:1 protein). Now we’ve found that a singular gene can code for multiple proteins (as many as 50) and that the simple translation/transcription process, as complex as it was, is now far more complicated than the mechanism long taught.
Case on point, the human genome can code for roughly 300,000 different proteins using only 30,000 genes. What is surprising about this find is that any given gene can be transcribed for many different protein products that are themselves changed by other processes once they are produced. We’ve learned that the non-gene regions (their base-code lengths, their spacing and location) may hold the keys to the complexity that we see in ourselves. We’ve also learned that the environment acting on our biological pathways may be just as important as our genetic code in making us what we are.
Mathematically speaking, what this find suggests is that point mutations are actually more deleterious than initially assumed, and it deals a harsh blow to the idea that such mutations could potentially be beneficial towards the propagation of ‘improvements’ directly or by proxy… if anything it drastically reduces the frequency that such mutations are actually beneficial because a mutation would not only affect the translation of the primary protein (the one coded by sequential translation of the strand) but potentially the translation of many more proteins (the ones coded by rearrangement of its exons and introns). Under this context, deleterious, pathologic mutations in the non-genic regions of the human genome may also cause or predispose us to genetic disorders (including increased susceptibility to certain viral attacks). It also deals a blow to the core evolutionary notion that new information can arise from purposeless processes [more on that later]… as in, much of the genetic material present in our genomes is actually dormant (within an intron, or within non-genic code) until something in the environment induces a change. Before the advent of DNA research there is no way we could have known that…
If you had followed my comment closely I said that our understanding of electromagnetism was developed enough to produce valid correlations for practical use. Maxwell’s equations are sound. Experiments surrounding the use of those empirical equations (along with the Planck, Boltzmann, Faraday, and dozens of other equations) yield hard, reproducible data.
The correlations derived by our understanding of the electromagnetic theory define what science is capable of achieving. It has led to the development of literally thousands of technologies that work because we understand the concepts behind them. I also mentioned that the effects at the atomic level did little to affect the overall correlations themselves (and by corollary the technologies which are based off of them). But that didn’t mean I was suggesting that we should stop seeking to understand the theory from that perspective. I was simply stating that what we know so far has led to the formulation of equations that work, formulas that can predict what a system will do under any number of conditions. That, admiralsnackbar, is hard science. It is applied science.
Belief in Macro-evolution doesn’t provide any practical applied benefit that comes remotely close to what the science behind electromagnetism has produced. I think you’re being rather disingenuous by suggesting that they can be placed on equal footing.
Does it matter that we’re still trying to understand the electromagnetic relationship of gravity and dark matter/energy with the known theories??? That we’ve yet to finalize the ultimate Grand Unified Theory itself? It doesn’t change the empirical truths of what’s been quantifiably understood thus far. Discovering the elusive link between dark energy and the electromagnetic theory won’t make our radios suddenly stop working. [/sarcasm]
Guessing that Species A could be an ancestor of Species E without the benefit of any hard evidence other than pointing out observational similarity, or morphology is not true science. Anymore than suggesting GOD created distinct, separate lineages to the produce the biodiversity we see today is. Neither assumption is testable.. That is my gripe with your continued assertions that evolution is based on hard data.
Ummm… that is based on genetics… on the transmission of genes. On the translation of proteins... on the known reactions of organic and biological compounds (whole branches called organic chemistry and biochemistry… you may have heard of them)… etc… etc… etc… not on the evolutionary theory. I’m beginning to see that the main problem here is that in your eyes (and others’ around here) biology = evolution… This is most definitely not the case.
I don’t need to believe that the rhesus monkey and humans allegedly shared a common ancestor 50 million years ago in order to know (and understand) that the phosphorylation of ATP (the conversion of ATP to ADP, Pi, and energy) requires the use of Cytochrome c and that this catalyzed hydrolysis reaction drives the energy pathways for all organisms. (random example I know...)
I don’t need to believe in any macro-evolutionary claim to understand how biological processes function (those that we can actually observe and study under a microscope… and not guess about). etc... etc... etc...
It’s not about the mechanics… it’s about the claims that can quantifiably be made by the experimental data sets. I’ll explain that in detail below.
See “fallacy of consensus gentium” above.
The skepticism is valid because the claims made by macro-evolution have never been demonstrated in a lab setting… nor can they be extrapolated from observed micro-evolutionary processes as you suggested in the bolded quote.
At this point no scientist can verifiably claim, “there… we’ve done it, the crowning achievement has been attained… the genetic changes to this Escherichia coli bacterium (i.e. example) certifiably prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we all share a common ancestor…” Such a statement would be absurd because none of the morphological changes and variations that are observed in modern populations or the lab setting justify the conclusion of universal common ancestry. In fact, the experimental data suggest that there are natural limits to the extent to which species can change.
Consider this: The use of X-rays has been used to increase the mutation rate in Drosophila fruit flies by 15,000 percent (a favorite test subject amongst evolutionists due to a relatively short gestation). Scientists have been able to catalyze the ‘evolutionary process’ of the fruit fly such that what is seen to occur in the progeny of test subjects is the equivalent of having endured many millions of years of normal mutations and 'evolution'.
Even with this tremendous speedup in the rate of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than a fruit fly. More importantly, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. We've managed to create 6 winged versions… smaller eyes versions… longer legs versions… albino versions… but they are all still fruit flies, all of the Drosophila variety... Conveniently enough these experiments rarely publish data concerning the mortality rate of the test subjects, or the number of infertile batches that result. If they did, people would realize just how deleterious mutations actually are… as if the world’s affliction with cancer wasn’t enough of a clue.
The same principles hold true for the genetic experiments conducted on E. coli bacteria, a species which is used extensively in mutation studies. This is because they reproduce rapidly, producing large populations and large numbers of mutants, because we have the E. coli’s genome mapped out and because they are easily maintained and their environments are easily manipulated in the laboratory… Despite all of their advantages, never has there arisen within a colony of test bacteria a bacterium with a primitive nucleus. Never has a bacterium within a colony of test bacteria been observed to make a simple multi-cellular formation. Although hundreds of strains and varieties of Escherichia coli have been formed, the progeny remain Escherichia coli and are easily identifiable as such. Even the citrate tolerant E. coli from the study frequently mentioned here continue to be called by that taxonomic name. Macro-evolution simply cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolutionary processes… the logical conclusion you wish to take is simply not warranted by the data or by any of the attainable morphological changes.
Speaking of changes, the functional changes observed in species do nothing to advance the claim of universal common ancestry. Interestingly, most if not all of the functional changes observed in species point away from random mutation as the explanation. They do so in two ways.
First, some of the changes are produced by a loss of information. That raises the question of how the information that was lost arose in the first place. Obviously, there are some point mutations that, under the right cir stances, do give the organism an advantage. There are point mutations that make bacteria resistant to antibiotics. There are some that make insects resistant to insecticides. There are some that increase quan ative traits in farm plants and animals (seedless fruit, etc…). But all of these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making the protein less specific. They add no information, and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all of the mutations that have been identified and studied so far destroy information. None of these can serve as an example of a mutation that can produce the large changes proposed by macroevolution. That’s also why Lancaster’s claim that the citrate tolerant E. coli attained their tolerance by gaining new information is suspect and still being researched.
The Neo-Darwinian would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are.
Second, some of the changes appear to be nonrandom responses to the environment, suggesting that the genome was ‘set up’ for an adaptive change to be triggered by a cue from the environment. That raises the question of how the genome came to be in that ‘prepared’ state (but that’s another matter entirely). I recall a study where a strain of E. coli that lacked a gene necessary for the metabolizing of lactose was prepared and introduced into a lactose environment. In the presence of lactose, two mutations were found in the same bacterium (one to a dormant and previously unknown structural gene and the other to its control gene) that in combination permitted it to metabolize the sugar... One should have had to wait thousands of years to see these double mutations, but in the presence of lactose 40 of them were found within a matter of days. These results suggest that presence of lactose in the environment induced these mutations… not random point mutations that evolution proposes. I mean, 40 bacteria had an identical genetic response to their environment (conversely, the odds for random point mutations accounting for that mass genetic change, in 40 individual bacteria, no less…. is flat out zero).
Darwinian evolutionists see the nonrandom interpretation of these experimental results as obviously incorrect because it contradicts the Neo-Darwinian dogma, their established worldview. Fortunately, this phenomenon has also been observed in other plants and animals… and not only on the bacterial level. Resistance to the nonrandom-variation interpretation stems from a refusal to abandon the Darwinian agenda. With that agenda, nonrandom adaptive variation, arising from an environmental signal turning ON an already present set of genes, is hard to account for… But just as some bacteria contain “cryptic” genes which encode for enzymes that are needed in some environments, so too higher order organisms may also have latent parts of their genome dedicated to be adaptive under a certain set of environmental conditions that may arise.
As an aside; that’s also why canine diversity is so overwhelmingly poignant as a counter to the suggestion that phenotypic changes require hundreds of thousands or millions of years (or thousands of generations) to become manifest. What we find is that drastic genotypic changes can be induced in as few as one generation.
Unlike macro-evolutionary claims these are processes that can actually be studied in a lab setting. They can be tested. They yield measureable data. The future will probably marginalize those who hold my viewpoint further, no matter. The point of this entire argument however is to point out that your authoritative claim to call your evolutionary view ‘hard-science’ is premature. Furthermore, there are other plausible mechanisms out there that can equally explain our current biodiversity. Lastly, you have no grounds to call me out for what basically amounts to your opinion vs. mine…
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-24-2010 at 08:10 PM.
^ /thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
