|Evolution.Page 27 of 64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)|
where did the information to make eyes come from, when there were no eye making genes in the primordial soup?
bones from jelly
When you've read those, and have more meaningful questions than "how did eyes come from nothing," or, "how did bones come from jelly," let us know, and we can address your more direct concerns more directly.
Until then, you're unlikely to get too many more lengthy explanations (like the tens of responses you've received on similar topics to date...) which you won't read, respond to, or address from people who have better things to do than lob their time into your black hole of willful ignorance.
Posted: 3/10/2010 5:42:14 PM
|So have you always been such a coward, App? |
That wasn't that kind of a discussion.
Actually, it could have been just that. However, you had to come along with this little petulant snark...
Maybe most Scientific Materialists are pretentious wannabe scientists like you, Stargazer.
Oh, but that wasn't intended to be provocative in any way now, was it. I'm sure you read my response, batted your eyes and said 'what? Little ol' me?' Spare me. Although I find it interesting that people like you who come across with the "higher self" philosophy of life always seem to be the first to resort to childish insults and flame baiting. Here's a word for you to look up App..."hypocrite."
It's fortunate that religion has its own separate forum, presumably without science-evangelists joining their discussions. If only philosophy too could have its own forum.
Check the title...it's "Evolution." Here's the OP, to refresh your memory:
Why do you suppose that the volumes of facts and data in support of evolution have been repressed in public schools. I know that religious leaders are opposed, but they aren't enough to persuade the boards to not teach the theory.
Indeed, it seems that the OP is concerned about the suppression of the science of evolution from the classroom by moral and "intellectual" (sorry, I had to put that in quotes. Applying the term "intellectual" to you without them just seemed...wrong) relativists such as yourself.
The evolution thread is about science, but it necessarily also involves philosophy too, maybe sometimes including metaphysics and the philosophy of religion.
Ah, the great Appy has spoken! So where does childish taunts fit into your vaunted heights of philosophical discussion and greater understanding, App?
You're referring to the place where certain science-buffs have their heads, when they feel that science (represented by them, of course) has to take on philosophy and religion.
Clearly it is a territory your more than familiar with. But hey, you want to have a philosophical discussion, try being worthy of it. Personally, I don't think you've got the ability.
Posted: 3/10/2010 10:41:53 PM
|Profession: Education, Research. Neuro Psy/Genetics|
Smarts: PhD / Post Doctoral
I think Aremeself just got owned by someone who actually has an education...
Edit: It's very rare to see a female in the scientific field. We welcome our new intelligent female overlords.
Posted: 3/11/2010 5:14:05 AM
Profession: Education, Research. Neuro Psy/Genetics
Smarts: PhD / Post Doctoral
I think Aremeself just got owned by someone who actually has an education...
Edit: It's very rare to see a female in the scientific field. We welcome our new intelligent female overlords.
And I think I'm in love!
I also wonder how anybody can think that humans are the best thing that evolution could come up with.
Because they think THEY are the best thing nature could come up with.
Posted: 3/11/2010 9:54:22 AM
also wonder how anybody can think that humans are the best thing that evolution could come up with.
Helloooooo? Deep Fried Snickers Bar!!! ( also assorted other "food on a stick" )
( need I say more ? )
Posted: 3/11/2010 12:53:47 PM
Cowards are people who pick on someone who is easy to pick on.
Cowards are also people who pick fights and then run behind their "oh, but you misunderstood what I meant" response when they get called on it. Fine, you want to take a swipe at me, go ahead. You're only embarrassing yourself, really. You're certainly showing your true colours at every swipe. But at least have the guts to stand behind it rather than trying to weasel your way out of it. Or try to turn it around as being someone else's fault. Hell, you're starting to sound like my ex-wife.
Hey, here's a thought...you can keep your snide comments to yourself and deal with the subject at hand. Then maybe you might get treated like a big person too, rather than a petulant adolescent.
Sometimes, to a dogmatist, a relativist is someone who isn't a dogmatist. I'm not quite sure in what other sense I'm described as a relativist.
A relativist coward? :-)
Well, if the shoe fits...however, you're assuming there's some kind of dogmatic approach to the science here. What you seem not to want to accept is that science works by a very particular methodology. In evolution as in any other field, hypothesis is followed by experimentation and/or observation followed by refinement of the theory.
Of course, scientists do realize that ANY theory can be overthrown with new discoveries. At the very least, it can be vastly re-edited. However, evolution as a whole is sound science.
Religionists don't consider religion or God to be supernatural, either as said by them, or by reasonable definitions of that word. The use of that word, then, in discussions about religion, amounts to a mischaracterization of the beliefs that you're criticizing or disagreeing with.
By YOUR interpretation. Actually, "God" by definition would be "supernatural" or, at the very least, "supranatural" since He would be either "above" or "beyond" what we define as "nature." He is, after all, said by some to have "created" nature. Of course, feel free to define God in any fashion you see fit.
When conflict is the initial assumption, that leads one to start out with a perjorative style.
Actually, no. You choose this path. Remember what you've been saying all along. Are you now trying to say, "well, I choose my existence but, the moment Stargazer starts up with his science stuff, well I have no choice but to get snarky?" Hmm. Interesting. A tad hypocritical, isn't it?
So....then people who follow or do science don't have a right to characterise God in that context? So are we to bend to your will and make you the ultimate authority, App? My, how...superior of you. Kind of what you are accusing us "scientivists" of. Again, shall we call that "hypocrisy?"
Now, if you want to come along and say "but that's not how I want to think about things," go right ahead. Re-define words and concepts about the universe all you like. If you want to believe we somehow "create" the universe, well if that works for your ego, go right ahead. But please, you want an exclusive "philosophy" forum or even a philosophy discussion, then either talk to the site developer or post one respectively.
In the meantime, I'd suggest reading Onus' comments on what constitutes the philosophy of science. Or read a book by any of the great commentators of science today. You might actually learn something.
Posted: 3/11/2010 2:25:50 PM
My posting before this was carefully polite. I carefully explained what was wrong with the ongoing religon vs science conflict that you were waging.
Bullshyte. Calling someone a "pretentious scientist wannabe?" Please.
You want to define other people's religions for them.
No, you want to accuse me of it without anything resembling proof.
It's this aggressive sloppiness and loud, pretentious ingnorance of yours that turns discussions southward. That, and your inclination to be an angry flamewarrior, even when replying to a polite post, as exemplified by your post to which I'm now replying.
Oh, I see. Again, it's someone else's fault. The whole "pretentious scientist wannabe," followed by laughable statements by you about my understanding of science.
Actually, it would be more refreshing of you to actually talk about the topic.
But I do suggest that it isn't for you to define anyone else's religion for them--such things as claiming that religionists believe that God isn't natural, etc. If your philosophy includes believing in your authority to define others' religion for them, then your philosophy is wrong, and so, yes, then I criticize your philosophy.
Oh, please tell me how I've defined anyone's religion for them. Hey, you've accused me of not providing examples of my accusations then turn around and make your own without proof. Goose, gander, sauce...you know?
I'd suggest you want to avoid flame wars, don't be a flame baiter. Or, at the very least, have the maturity to resist your baser instincts to start calling people names.
But I've told you of some errors that you make in your comments about religion.
Your assumptions. Not surprising of you to jump to that conclusion.
Posted: 3/11/2010 3:48:16 PM
|You know what, App. I just can't be bothered debating with you. You clearly lack any credible understanding of what science really is about. You are too tied up with your own personal cosmology that apparently places you at the center of the universe since it is apparently your own "dreamed up" reality.|
I will stand by my statements that, given that the universe is a physical reality, if it is "created" by some supreme deity, intelligence, whatever, then physical evidence for its existence should be discoverable using scientific methods. It only makes sense.
Clearly you missed the point that this view actually leaves open the door for such a creature, should it exist. Perhaps you were too busy trying to come up with some clever "gotcha" to give it the full consideration it deserves. Or perhaps you're too busy trying to hijack the thread towards your "you dreamed up your reality so you could have 'physical' experience" agenda to think it through. Either way, you've done little more than embarrass yourself as you've seen fit to resort to snide insults. I'm sorry for you.
Perhaps it's time you got back to the original intent of the thread before the mods decide we both need to be given a "time out."
Posted: 3/11/2010 5:44:05 PM
POF to Krebby2001:
Ignore the trolls.
Between your troll and mine, I'm just glad we're not a couple of billy goats or small children.
However, the point that they just love to miss is the fact that not all ideas are going to be held to the same level of esteem. The "I want to believe its possible so it is possible" approach greatly ignores the obvious...what you want to believe about something doesn't make it more or less real.
Yes. Real. As in a physical reality. As in something that either does or does not exist. And real scientists only get to that by the discipline to conduct experiments or make observations, study and submit findings to peers who can assess the validity of those findings.
The "Oh, but reality is a dream I'm having so I can have a 'physical' experience to grow as a spiritual being' is, quite frankly, meaningless to the very nature of what is real. It does nothing to address the nature of reality. It certainly doesn't accomplish anything like cure disease, discover new fundamental particles or identify new species.
Posted: 3/11/2010 6:08:37 PM
eg If the preferred fodder of an animal becomes scarce, LaMarck said it would browse on other food and thus become able to digest it and in turn pass that capacity to its offspring.
We know evolution happens. We have seen many species evolve within the fossil records. We just need to think in small increments, that is how evolution starts.
Tottaly agree—and I think the smaller we go the easier it seems.
A lactose intolerant bacterium is fed a lactose diet. Bacterium adapt ..
We see viruses do this as well—
If I remember correctly, the chemical structure of the gene starts to break down.
Say DNA— AT, GC, GC, AT- sequence- then a toxin is introduced—you get a break down--- AT, ??, GC, AT---
RNA—heads out on a repair missing
– finds a damaged area and plugs the hole—with a new protein / code AT, AT, GC, AT-
If it works !! great—the code lives on—replicates.
Darwin says only those already capable of digesting it would survive..
I think this is where Darwinism falls into the materialist camp.
Materialist stand on what can be seen (already capable of digesting)
If we can focus down from a cows digestive capabilities to a bacterium to DNA—RNA,,
I would have to assume there are smaller and smaller causes and effects..
The question is—how far ?---
And that’s a spiritual quest..
That’s why teaching evolution in school is an issue—
WE can’t figure out how small we want to go--
Posted: 3/12/2010 2:12:44 PM
Yep, you are right, the bacterium ADAPTED, not evolved, just as the animal that was used to eating a particular type of fodder, but had to change its eating habits. Quite a bit of a difference from evolution.
Actually adaptation is evolution.
Posted: 3/12/2010 4:32:40 PM
So during the adaptation process, the DNA is changed? Correct me if I am wrong, but that animal can adapt back to its prior state with no DNA change, right?
Okay, you're wrong. The bacteria don't lose the ability to metabolize glucose if they become lactose tolerant, but they do undergo changes (mutations and selection) in their DNA which allow them to metabolize lactose. The only way they "adapt back" is through further random mutations which knock out their ability to metabolize lactose.
That said, lactose-tolerant bacteria generally don't EXPRESS the enzymes required for metabolizing lactose when glucose is also present, because glucose is a much more efficient fuel source, and it's a waste of energy to activate the less-efficient pathway when a better fuel source is available.
Posted: 3/12/2010 4:48:57 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but that animal can adapt back to its prior state with no DNA change, right?
Well, that would depend on how you mean by genetic change.
I would ask if you think it is possible for an animal already naturally selected to survive a change in environment can then survive an additional change in environment. If not, why not? Are you suggesting only one generation or are you allowing for multiple...in the case of bacteria, thousands... of generations?
Posted: 3/12/2010 8:16:30 PM
If I understand correctly, humans have the most complex DNA, then Chimps and Dolphins, then that guy in the gym with the dumb bells.
Wrong. Humans are actually surprisingly simple. We have 30,000 genes in our DNA. Rice has more genes in its DNA than humans do. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe most of our DNA is classified as junk DNA.
What is also surprising, is that the puffer fish is extremely complex and it contains absolutely 'no' junk DNA.
So no.. Humans do not have the most complex DNA.
Posted: 3/12/2010 8:42:43 PM
|No. A higher level of consciousness does not make our DNA more simple. We need to have a higher demand for the ability to become immune to certain diseases. Our immune system must not recognize our own tissues or cells as that would be lethal.|
And I just looked it up and I am wrong about junk DNA.. It only encompasses 5% of our genome. But the other things I am correct about.
Posted: 3/12/2010 9:02:24 PM
|I know, because correlation does not equate to causation. You are appealing to a fallacy. Our immune system HAS to be simpler in terms of gene expression otherwise humans would get autoimmune disease and die from it. Dying prevents our ability to reproduce meaning there is a 0% chance of living unless our gene expression was more limited.|
Posted: 3/13/2010 5:08:31 AM
|I wonder if the genetic code is a semblance of not only, who we are, but also a map of who we were. And the junk DNA is perhaps the story|
All stages of development coded and encased – We don’t seem to have a problem with ancestral identification with apes. But what about before—a long long time ago.
Perhaps who we are is an evolution of complexity right from the simplest microbe.
I think matter has this strange attraction to it self and grows into a more and more complex structure.
So I guess the notion of environmental adaptation works, but we don’t lose what was, we retain and develop more complex structures to make do..
A never-ending swirl of confluence that creates all kinds of-- what we consider life.
Posted: 3/14/2010 8:22:31 AM
I know, you like to recite the scientific method to us, like a parrot, or like someone intoning a religious chant.
Ah yes, the usual "science is religion" old stand-by used by the truly science illiterate. The fact that a particular subject area might actually have inherent concepts that are expressed by certain words is invalid only if it disagrees with one's own world view. Interesting.
But what I believe isn't relevant to your rants or my snswers to them, though it seems very important to you, to make a topic about what others believe.
Or, you just feel the need to troll. You see, this is a discussion forum. So I'm pretty much free to post as I see fit. But, to you, anyone who doesn't agree with you has to be a...what is it you called me?..."pretentious wannabe scientist?" Hmm...who is suffering the inferiority complex, here.
Let's be clear. What others believe is entirely up to them. Even you. However, the topic is the dangers of having someone dictate education based on what is essentially a religious belief (i.e. creationism/ID). Try and stay on topic. So please refrain from trying to hijack the thread to suit your own purposes, please.
Creature, etymologically, and, as always used, refers to something that has been created. And it's irrelevant what your belief leaves the door open for.
By your interpretation. You see, the dictionary also allows for "An imaginary or fantastical being." Oh, I know you don't like dictionaries. They have the uncomfortable tendency to undermine your selective use of definitions. Too bad.
Yes, you said that you're an Agnostic, but, if so, you're an Agnostic who feels a need to go on the warpath against anything that isn't Materialism.
On the contrary. You're reacting to your interpretation of what you think I believe. As an apparent "defender" of the spiritualist, perhaps you might like to consider the possibility that the purpose of the thread is not actually about spiritualism. It's about religion and it's intrusion into the classroom. Spiritualism is entirely different from religion although they appear to speak the same language. Religion is almost entirely institutional. Set rules of worshiping its central deity (or deities). 'Spiritualism' allows a little more free-form interpretations.
I find it interesting, though, that you seem to regard science and "materialism" as such a threat. Are you worried that, if you examine your own beliefs a little too closely, you might find weakness in them? Perhaps you might want to deal with that internally, rather than attacking those who represent the thing you seem to fear the most.
In any case, as I've said before, your own Materialism is just as unprovable as any other metaphysics.
"Materialism" is a label you use and has nothing to do with evidence or proof. Evolution is a science of origins which has evidence. You don't like science. We get it. Interesting, though, that you have to go on the attack of anyone who does.
While we're at it...
From the "How much matter is there in the universe" discussion...
Stargazer, you aren't a scientist. Need I remind you of the several ways you proved that so well, the ones that I listed yesterday? Shall I list them again?
...looks like Mr. Perfect missed one.
No. 50 million years ago they'd have found fairly advanced life here (dinosaurs, etc.). That, of itself, would be a rare find.
Posted: 3/14/2010 2:36:05 PM
Someone asked who creatred God, and I then explained why Theism doesn't have that dilemma.
Special pleading. Sorry.
Posted: 3/14/2010 4:45:37 PM
but I point out that Newton and Einstein were Theists.
Actually, Einstein would be more accurately referred to as a Deist. And since Newton is from a time where belief in God was more assumed than thought about, it can be argued that he doesn't really count.
And - you didn't actually *answer* the question of what created God. By saying things like 'God has Always Existed' or 'God is Outside of Time' all you're doing is evading the question, by suggesting attributes that cannot currently be tested.
Posted: 3/14/2010 6:31:04 PM
|(Not sure who showed me this...)|
Watch this documentary
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:56:09 AM
This thread should be discussing the biological, chemical and biophysical processes related to adaptation and evolution.
Actually, the OP was addressing the problems of having religious ideas such as Creation/Intelligent Design hijacking education of science.
I've begun reading Richard Dawkins book The Greatest Show On Earth. And while I'm not a big fan of his delivery style, his message is still relevant. In particular, he quotes a poll which indicated 40 per cent of Americans (Canadian stats weren't included) believe the Earth came into existence within the last 10,000 years.
But you're right, let's not feed the troll.
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:20:53 PM
|Special pleading - Making up shit (rules) that only apply to your case in order to bypass certain restrictions and to make sure that your case doesn't abide by the restrictions other cases have. This is a form of weaseling out of discussion. The reason this is a fallacious argument is that you can't just make shit up and say that no other argument can use your EXCUSE. (because that's what it is)|
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:29:56 PM
Special pleading - Making up shit (rules) that only apply to your case in order to bypass certain restrictions and to make sure that your case doesn't abide by the restrictions other cases have.
Generally used when religion is brought into a discussion or debate, where the person employing it feels/believes that because something is stated in the Bible it is to be taken as a given by both sides of the argument and that particular statement or point ( as derived from the Bible) is to be accepted as factual and thus not to be questioned..
In this case "who created the Creator? ... The Bible says God is eternal-- case closed".
It pops up frequently with those who support the "Intelligent Design" people. They wish to have ID taught in schools as a "science", but all investigation & enquiry in their so-called science ends at "God did it". They can believe whatever they like, but calling it a science is fraudulent.
Posted: 3/15/2010 2:17:46 PM
Though I answered a question that someone else had asked, I didn't initiate communication with Stargazer or solicit his initial reply to me. Stargazer decided to start replying to me. I hadn't said anything to Stargazer before that time.
Actually, I responded to a discussion point and you responded with the phrase "pretentious scientist wannabe." And you've used similar dismissive statements with others who've dared to counter any statement by you.
I suggest that it's a bit asinine to suggest that my initial answer to someone's question was an instance of somseone trolling for arguments.
And yet, you have yet to tackle the main question.
64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)