WOW!!!! Upcoming Cover of Newsweek!

[PearlWatson]

So you're not a creationist? Go on. Answer. Tell us how you don't buy into other people's religion unless it's, you know, actual religion.

No. A lot of intelligent people believe in God. Some people even have incredibly deep reasons for suspecting the existence of such entity. Take our fellow Jazzfanz member AtheistPreacher for instance. But I have yet to meet a non-creationist who denies the validity of the theory of evolution (I'm counting those who believe we were created by aliens and such). There is absolutely no way someone objectively looks at the evidence and independently decides that another theory offers a better explanation.

I'm still waiting.

It would be quite the challenge. Even to someone like Michael Behe, one of the few respectable scientists in the ranks of the intelligent design movement. He accepts the common descent of all life, including humans. He simply objects to the notion that naturalistic processes offer a better explanation than a conscious guide. Not some hilarity about how not everything is bacteria. PearlWatson simply memorized a few soundbites to throw at proponents of evolution from the usual denialist channels. It is very difficult for him to look at the theory objectively because he has created quite the web of fantasies to justify his irrationality, to the extent where any rational inquiry on the subject represents a serious threat to his worldview.

I'm so sorry to keep a superior bloke like yourself waiting.

Why do I have to chose between uncommon descent and intelligence directed common descent to rationally reject Darwin's stories about bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales, and the "evidence" that supposedly supports them?

Paleontologists, not "creationists" were the first "deniers" of the theory because there was nothing in the fossil record to support it. There still isn't.

I guess I could go ahead and have faith in the Darwiniac randomly mutated web of fantasies like I did in highschool, but everything science has learned about molecules, cells, and DNA prevents me from rationally doing so.

 

[larryselbows]

I'm so sorry to keep a superior bloke like yourself waiting.

Why do I have to chose between uncommon descent and intelligence directed common descent to rationally reject Darwin's stories about bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales, and the "evidence" that supposedly supports them?

Paleontologists, not "creationists" were the first "deniers" of the theory because there was nothing in the fossil record to support it. There still isn't.

I guess I could go ahead and have faith in the Darwiniac randomly mutated web of fantasies like I did in highschool, but everything science has learned about molecules, cells, and DNA prevents me from rationally doing so.

Wash your face.

 

[PearlWatson]

Ummmm.....no. I was making clear that he in fact was a science fiction author and that he believed in a whole bunch of paranormal nonsense. I used the past tense because he's dead, but I highlighted his "to be" verbs for you to emphasize the truth value of those things. This little misunderstanding is kind of endemic to how you read everything though.

Already answered by Darkwing Duck. But it's demonstrable that over the course of just a couple decades perfectly identical strains became very demonstrably different strains through natural selection. In the most notable instance one strain became capable of ingesting substances as food that are indigestible by the other strains. It is hard to say these are not, at some point, notably different species of e coli now that they have notably different properties from one another. Some e coli strains, in effect, did evolve into something more closely resembling salmonella. Models on the creation of new species have also been extensively tested and are repeatable. The evidence that these types of divergences from common ancestors occurs is overwhelming.

At some point you're just stating that you don't like consensus. By itself that isn't an argument that global warming or evolution isn't true. It's only an argument that you're being a contrarian *******.

Crichton put paranormal elements into his science fiction writings? Fascinating. Here I was thinking you were trying to ignore/dismiss his science credentials because you think he doesn't believe in global warming. Maybe, his belief in global warming is just more of this "other nonsense" he talks about.

Wow, bacteria staying bacteria is so wondrous...and so not evidence of a common descent.

Models on the creation of new species have been replicated? Call me crazy but I don't see code written by humans or selective breeding fitting in the "natural selection" column.

Stating that I don't believe in consensus science means I require scientific evidence before I consider theories scientifically supported. It is that simple.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm so sorry to keep a superior bloke like yourself waiting.

Why do I have to chose between uncommon descent and intelligence directed common descent to rationally reject Darwin's stories about bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales, and the "evidence" that supposedly supports them?

You don't, since that's a preposterous statement. Most of Darwin's methodology has been rejected and replaced with more up to date methodologies. That's what science is.

Paleontologists, not "creationists" were the first "deniers" of the theory because there was nothing in the fossil record to support it. There still isn't.

Of evolutionary theory? Nice lie.

I guess I could go ahead and have faith in the Darwiniac randomly mutated web of fantasies like I did in highschool, but everything science has learned about molecules, cells, and DNA prevents me from rationally doing so.

Molecules, cells, and DNA support modern evolutionary theory.

 

[PearlWatson]

You don't, since that's a preposterous statement. Most of Darwin's methodology has been rejected and replaced with more up to date methodologies. That's what science is.

As far as I know Darwin's methodology was to observe finches. Observation has been rejected and replaced? The change in the beaks of finches has stopped being used as evidence of common descent? Good cause it was about as supportive as bacteria changing into bacteria.

Of evolutionary theory? Nice lie.

Surprising, but true.

Molecules, cells, and DNA support modern evolutionary theory.

Whatever that damned elusive neodarwiniac theory might be, genetic code is laughing in its face.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

As far as I know Darwin's methodology was to observe finches. Observation has been rejected and replaced? The change in the beaks of finches has stopped being used as evidence of common descent? Good cause it was about as supportive as bacteria changing into bacteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

Darwin's methodology, and methodology in general, is more complex than what you claim.

Surprising, but true.

The fossil record does nothing to evolutionary theory as a whole. It updates the knowledge base.

Whatever that damned elusive neodarwiniac theory might be, genetic code is laughing in its face.

The genetic code is a great tool to show evolution.

 

[Revolution 9]

Why is it that whenever something negative is printed against a conservative they always scream "oh it's the liberal media again"

Did they ever stop, and think....maybe the article is correct?

 

[sirkickyass]

Crichton put paranormal elements into his science fiction writings? Fascinating. Here I was thinking you were trying to ignore/dismiss his science credentials because you think he doesn't believe in global warming. Maybe, his belief in global warming is just more of this "other nonsense" he talks about.

Are you purposely being dense?

Crichton wrote science fiction. He also believed in paranormal events and activities. He did not only include the paranormal in his fiction writings. Jesus H, I sometimes feel like you're going out of your way to avoid understanding.

For example: Crichton believed in spoon bending and other psychic manipulation of heavy metal objects. He believed he had a demonic protector since the age of four that he had to engage in astral projection and exorcism in order to remove. He believed mediums could communicate with lost souls and have pyschic visions. He believed in aura viewing and telepathy. He wrote a portion of one of his nonfiction books about a conversation he had with a cactus.

He's a really weird guy and probably not the one you want to hitch your train to when it comes to adopting a lens to view the scientific community.

 

[babe]

Are you purposely being dense?

Crichton wrote science fiction. He also believed in paranormal events and activities. He did not only include the paranormal in his fiction writings. Jesus H, I sometimes feel like you're going out of your way to avoid understanding.

For example: Crichton believed in spoon bending and other psychic manipulation of heavy metal objects. He believed he had a demonic protector since the age of four that he had to engage in astral projection and exorcism in order to remove. He believed mediums could communicate with lost souls and have pyschic visions. He believed in aura viewing and telepathy. He wrote a portion of one of his nonfiction books about a conversation he had with a cactus.

He's a really weird guy and probably not the one you want to hitch your train to when it comes to adopting a lens to view the scientific community.

You're a lawyer, I suppose.

In law school, I hear they teach the principles of ad hominem attack as a substitute for actual evidence.

In my logic classes, they told me that the ad hominem argument is normally a fallacy.

 

[babe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

Darwin's methodology, and methodology in general, is more complex than what you claim.



The fossil record does nothing to evolutionary theory as a whole. It updates the knowledge base.





The genetic code is a great tool to show evolution.

The genetic "code" is not proof of evolution, nor of the convenient assumption that not all mutations are detrimental. It takes some kind of a chosen fondness for the effects of a given base-pair substitution to believe in "beneficial". There is also a fetish in the fashion of thought that maintains the importance of some "rate" of base-pair substitutions being maintained by Nature over Eons of time, which can not be scientifically proven as a principle, because it's pretty much unobserved hypothesis of history.

From the outset, the idea that a very small fraction of random base-pair substitutions may have been "beneficial" in some way, and may have resulted in the existence of all life arising from a pre-cellular aggregation of self-replicating structures thriving in some sort of building-block "soup" is virtually a religious assertion. Who made this soup? Who knew what life could be? You're from the outset just "guessing", just as well as some suppose the Biblical creation story was "made up" out of nothing.

All in all, the bulk of the evidence seen in the study of genetic sequences constitutes a huge red flag against believing "chance" has produced all of the viable life forms seen in nature from a single starting point, unless you are religiously obtuse about wanting to believe nothing intelligent created intelligence.

 

[Stoked]

Why is it that whenever something negative is printed against a conservative they always scream "oh it's the liberal media again"

Did they ever stop, and think....maybe the article is correct?

That depends why they are doing it? Is it for a legitimate thing? (See that Adkin guy and his beyond idiotic rape comment). Or are they out to just score political points like they often are?

 

[Stoked]

You're a lawyer, I suppose.

In law school, I hear they teach the principles of ad hominem attack as a substitute for actual evidence.

In my logic classes, they told me that the ad hominem argument is normally a fallacy.

So basically you cannot refute anything he said and resort to attacking lawyers, nice.

 

[Siro]

I'm so sorry to keep a superior bloke like yourself waiting.

Why do I have to chose between uncommon descent and intelligence directed common descent to rationally reject Darwin's stories about bears falling in the ocean and becoming whales, and the "evidence" that supposedly supports them?

Paleontologists, not "creationists" were the first "deniers" of the theory because there was nothing in the fossil record to support it. There still isn't.

I guess I could go ahead and have faith in the Darwiniac randomly mutated web of fantasies like I did in highschool, but everything science has learned about molecules, cells, and DNA prevents me from rationally doing so.

What bears and whales and evolution denying paleontologists? You appear to know next to nothing about evolution, or even science in general. You can go back to crying about media being mean to you and your conservative sycophants. I have no interest in pursuing this any further.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Doesn't everyone know whales evolved from bears?

 

[Siro]

The genetic "code" is not proof of evolution, nor of the convenient assumption that not all mutations are detrimental. It takes some kind of a chosen fondness for the effects of a given base-pair substitution to believe in "beneficial". There is also a fetish in the fashion of thought that maintains the importance of some "rate" of base-pair substitutions being maintained by Nature over Eons of time, which can not be scientifically proven as a principle, because it's pretty much unobserved hypothesis of history.

From the outset, the idea that a very small fraction of random base-pair substitutions may have been "beneficial" in some way, and may have resulted in the existence of all life arising from a pre-cellular aggregation of self-replicating structures thriving in some sort of building-block "soup" is virtually a religious assertion. Who made this soup? Who knew what life could be? You're from the outset just "guessing", just as well as some suppose the Biblical creation story was "made up" out of nothing.

All in all, the bulk of the evidence seen in the study of genetic sequences constitutes a huge red flag against believing "chance" has produced all of the viable life forms seen in nature from a single starting point, unless you are religiously obtuse about wanting to believe nothing intelligent created intelligence.

Babe, you always go back to the question of abiogensis. That area of biochemistry, while no where near as presumptuous as any religion, is still shrouded in mystery. Since naturalistic processes seem to explain everything else, the only rational methodology for modeling "origin of life" must be naturalistic. Or is this God of the Gap impossible to refute, no matter how much we actually learn?

Additionally, natural selection has nothing to do with chance. Mutations are unpredictable, of course, but selection is not random. Are you doubting that natural selection happens? Or is it the old objection to speciation? Do you believe God made everything the way it is, with an apparent link between life forms that shows in DNA, fossils, observation of anatomical differences and similarities between species, the existence of useless features in most species that have uses in close relatives, and chronological agreement with other fields like geology and astronomy?

I cannot debate with you on the basis of genetics alone. You understand that subject far better than I do. :/

 

[babe]

Babe, you always go back to the question of abiogensis. That area of biochemistry, while no where near as presumptuous as any religion, is still shrouded in mystery. Since naturalistic processes seem to explain everything else, the only rational methodology for modeling "origin of life" must be naturalistic. Or is this God of the Gap impossible to refute, no matter how much we actually learn?

Additionally, natural selection has nothing to do with chance. Mutations are unpredictable, of course, but selection is not random. Are you doubting that natural selection happens? Or is it the old objection to speciation? Do you believe God made everything the way it is, with an apparent link between life forms that shows in DNA, fossils, observation of anatomical differences and similarities between species, the existence of useless features in most species that have uses in close relatives, and chronological agreement with other fields like geology and astronomy?

I cannot debate with you on the basis of genetics alone. You understand that subject far better than I do. :/

I appreciate the intellectual exercise of reading your response, and the respect you show for the debate between alternative ideas. I was merely intending to cast some questions out there (in here) which might precipitate some thought.

fundamentally, I suspect that our human reason is not yet on the same horizon that ultimate understanding requires. . . we're nosing around in some bottom muck, and the world will look a lot different when we work through it, if we rise to the need for light.

I suspect that things do change over time, but I do not have a complete list of conservative life principles, that is to say natural or guided actions whether working on statistical or interventional trends, that might be involved.

Already, we have undeniable proof of human intervention in the process in terms of genetic engineering efforts going on in our laboratories. . . . and we are idiots at this stage, with no good sense about the consequences or the methods of controlling those consequences.

I would not call our intervention "intelligent design", but hey, what is "intelligent" anyway, if not a fantasy we flatter ourselves with. . .

I gave Rev a posrep today for still being on topic in this thread. . . . not sure I want to start/revive an appropriate thread for this discussion, but you make the idea interesting. . . .

 

[Siro]

I appreciate the intellectual exercise of reading your response, and the respect you show for the debate between alternative ideas. I was merely intending to cast some questions out there (in here) which might precipitate some thought.

fundamentally, I suspect that our human reason is not yet on the same horizon that ultimate understanding requires. . . we're nosing around in some bottom muck, and the world will look a lot different when we work through it, if we rise to the need for light.

I suspect that things do change over time, but I do not have a complete list of conservative life principles, that is to say natural or guided actions whether working on statistical or interventional trends, that might be involved.

Already, we have undeniable proof of human intervention in the process in terms of genetic engineering efforts going on in our laboratories. . . . and we are idiots at this stage, with no good sense about the consequences or the methods of controlling those consequences.

I would not call our intervention "intelligent design", but hey, what is "intelligent" anyway, if not a fantasy we flatter ourselves with. . .

I gave Rev a posrep today for still being on topic in this thread. . . . not sure I want to start/revive an appropriate thread for this discussion, but you make the idea interesting. . . .

Thank you for the response. You're reasonable and intelligent and I have nothing but the utmost respect for you.

 

[Stoked]

I appreciate the intellectual exercise of reading your response, and the respect you show for the debate between alternative ideas. I was merely intending to cast some questions out there (in here) which might precipitate some thought.

fundamentally, I suspect that our human reason is not yet on the same horizon that ultimate understanding requires. . . we're nosing around in some bottom muck, and the world will look a lot different when we work through it, if we rise to the need for light.

I suspect that things do change over time, but I do not have a complete list of conservative life principles, that is to say natural or guided actions whether working on statistical or interventional trends, that might be involved.

Already, we have undeniable proof of human intervention in the process in terms of genetic engineering efforts going on in our laboratories. . . . and we are idiots at this stage, with no good sense about the consequences or the methods of controlling those consequences.

I would not call our intervention "intelligent design", but hey, what is "intelligent" anyway, if not a fantasy we flatter ourselves with. . .

I gave Rev a posrep today for still being on topic in this thread. . . . not sure I want to start/revive an appropriate thread for this discussion, but you make the idea interesting. . . .

I particularly like that part. Once humanity gets it's act together everything will indeed change.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Interesting how a line gets drawn in the sand as it relates to religious beliefs and the method whereby we have all creation. I believe in God and I could also get behind any number of theories as part of the intelligent design process.

I believe in evolution, but from a slightly different definition, I suppose. Theories such as abiogenesis and the holes associated with fossil record (or whatever else) are often answered with new theories (punctuated equilibrium, i.e.) .. and each have holes. I like what Babe said about us having only glimpsed any truth.

My point is, there's holes in proving creationism, evolution, or any other sub-theory. At this point, whether it's in the name of spirituality or science, there's faith involved .. and I don't know that if one got ultimately proven out, that it necessarily, or completely, debunks the alternative view.

 

[One Brow]

The genetic "code" is not proof of evolution, nor of the convenient assumption that not all mutations are detrimental. It takes some kind of a chosen fondness for the effects of a given base-pair substitution to believe in "beneficial".

You are correct, in than evidence is not proof and science deals with evidence. Th3e genetic code, and in particular the comparisons of it's structure in different animals is evidence of evolution.

You seem to be caught up in pin-point mutations. Gene duplication, among other types of mutatons, has seemed to play a much larger role.