Fun with Evolutionists

[lao tzu]

Owch, the nasty abusive ad homenim. Really doesn't have any place in such a serious scientific discussion, don't ya think? ;)

Greetings, easyboy201, and welcome to TWeb.

It's easy to misread ongoing discussions, especially when you're new to the personalities involved. This isn't a serious scientific discussion. Supersport is, by his own admission, a college dropout, and by clear evidence, incapable of comprehending the theory of evolution on his own. Look up near the usernames of those replying and you'll see he's being vilified by christian and non-christian alike.

This is a troll thread, "Fun with evolutionists," begun by a cowardly cur who runs from thread to thread and board to board each time his position becomes untenable. It doesn't matter whether the board is run by christians or atheists. Eventually he gets bounced. It will happen here, too, eventually.

I can remember when he'd at least go to the trouble of citing real literature, letting others pick up some interesting information while he was being debunked. But his last thread "jumped the shark." Citing Edgar Cayce and UFO enthusiasts is beyond the pale in a science forum, and even beyond what I'd previously thought supersport was capable.

I think we can date his sudden decline in quality to Gaytheist's recent email to a researcher he'd cited. The researcher was so incensed to see how his work was being misrepresented that he actually signed up on the board to demand that supersport cease and desist in his efforts to abuse the researcher's work. I believe that incident actually managed to embarrass him into avoiding the work of real scientists.

If you ask, someone will drop you a link I'm sure.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

I realize ...

Your most recent postings makes this claim highly doubtful, independent of its referent.

... what exactly did I say that was a non-sequitur?

You can wander the entire internet looking for snippets to take out of context, but you can't read the posts on your own thread?

Here's the relevant bit from Roy's post in which he reiterated his answer to your question from your OP:

Here's what I said: The organism, when viewed as the outcome of a collection of genes.
Here's what Gould said: Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly . It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies.

Your response assumed Roy had identified the gene as the object of selection, a clear non sequitur. I can't imagine why I go to the trouble of pointing this out, as your history shows you to be incapable of learning from your mistakes.

As ever, Jesse

[technomage]

But Natural Selection itself isn't origins science, correct? So then everyone might be talking about different things on this thread?

Easy, I don't make a distinction between "origins science" and "operative science," though I will use the terms to communicate with those who do. Both are science--the distinction that some people make about them is artificial.

[easyboy201]

Easy, I don't make a distinction between "origins science" and "operative science," though I will use the terms to communicate with those who do. Both are science--the distinction that some people make about them is artificial.

But isn't one science more trustworthy than the other? Since one is observable and the other is purely speculative?
Why would you use the two interchangibly?

[easyboy201]

Greetings, easyboy201, and welcome to TWeb.

It's easy to misread ongoing discussions, especially when you're new to the personalities involved. This isn't a serious scientific discussion. Supersport is, by his own admission, a college dropout, and by clear evidence, incapable of comprehending the theory of evolution on his own. Look up near the usernames of those replying and you'll see he's being vilified by christian and non-christian alike.

This is a troll thread, "Fun with evolutionists," begun by a cowardly cur who runs from thread to thread and board to board each time his position becomes untenable. It doesn't matter whether the board is run by christians or atheists. Eventually he gets bounced. It will happen here, too, eventually.

I can remember when he'd at least go to the trouble of citing real literature, letting others pick up some interesting information while he was being debunked. But his last thread "jumped the shark." Citing Edgar Cayce and UFO enthusiasts is beyond the pale in a science forum, and even beyond what I'd previously thought supersport was capable.

I think we can date his sudden decline in quality to Gaytheist's recent email to a researcher he'd cited. The researcher was so incensed to see how his work was being misrepresented that he actually signed up on the board to demand that supersport cease and desist in his efforts to abuse the researcher's work. I believe that incident actually managed to embarrass him into avoiding the work of real scientists.

If you ask, someone will drop you a link I'm sure.

As ever, Jesse

Why is citing Edgar Cayce and UFO enthusiasts a bad thing? Doesn't it not matter where the information is coming from but whether or not it is correct (unless it is a fallacious appeal to authority)?
Shouldn't the information itself be judged instead of the source?

[easyboy201]

"Such a serious scientific discussion" ???? Supersport is incapable of carrying on a serious scientific discussion, a fact he has repeatedly reaffirmed, so your objection rings hollow. However, if you seriously believe supersport's posts amount to serious scientific discussion, please prove us wrong and have one with him. It'll serve you right for playing games.

Why bother replying at all if it isn't going to be scientific then? ;) Unless it's philosophical of course and then it doesn't belong in this section! ;)

[supersport]

Why is citing Edgar Cayce and UFO enthusiasts a bad thing? Doesn't it not matter where the information is coming from but whether or not it is correct (unless it is a fallacious appeal to authority)?
Shouldn't the information itself be judged instead of the source?

See that's the thing....I did not find this information from these sites. I found them in a variety of books, and the stories were simply repeated on these particular sites. If you are interested, one of these books is "Forbidden Archeology" from Michael Cremo.....which is an 850 page monstrosity that highlights all the unreported/hidden archaeological evidence that science refuses to acknowledge because it doesn't jive with the theory. The second is called "Underworld...The Mysterious Origins of Civilization" from Graham Hancock which is similar in that it's an investigation on early cultures that pays no care to what the scientific establishment has to say. Neither one of these books is quackery....they both derive their volumes of information by way of life-long personal investigations and incredible amounts of research. There really is so much information out there that science turns a blind eye to. Amazingly, anything that contradicts their theory is labeled simply as "mysterious" or "mythological"....meanwhile, completely unsupported facts, such as the Bering straight bridge crossing that the native American Indians supposedly used is propped up as "fact" without a shred of archaeological -- or any other kind -- of evidence to back it up.

[technomage]

But isn't one science more trustworthy than the other? Since one is observable and the other is purely speculative?

That is a claim that some people make, starting with Henry Morris--it is a false claim, however.

[technomage]

Why is citing Edgar Cayce and UFO enthusiasts a bad thing? Doesn't it not matter where the information is coming from but whether or not it is correct (unless it is a fallacious appeal to authority)?
Shouldn't the information itself be judged instead of the source?

While it is true that an invalid appeal to authority is a fallacy, there are limits to judging the information without judging the source. One very rarely finds diamonds in dungheaps.

[wattsr1]

But isn't one science more trustworthy than the other? Since one is observable and the other is purely speculative?
Why would you use the two interchangibly?

Out of curiosity easyboy201, your definitions of "origins science" and "operations science" appear to be that origins science is purely speculation while operations science is observable.

Since when has a science ever been pure speculation? Pure speculation is, well, speculation so why call it by another name? How can a science be pure speculation? Can you provide examples of sciences that are purely speculative and those that are observable? Do you see "observable" to be the oposite of "speculation"?


Regards, Roland

[lao tzu]

Why is citing Edgar Cayce and UFO enthusiasts a bad thing? Doesn't it not matter where the information is coming from but whether or not it is correct (unless it is a fallacious appeal to authority)?

You can't be serious. Do you know anything at all about Edgar Cayce?

Shouldn't the information itself be judged instead of the source?

No. Not if it's coming from crackpots and con men. LIfe is too short to spend time wading through crap that deep. We're talking hollow earth theories here. Stark, raving mad is an understatement. It's like trying to pick science out of a Lovecraft novel.

It's not as if that's all we have to work with. There are great gobs of reliable information available on geological processes that have been subjected to highly critical peer review processes for a score of decades. There are nearly a dozen working geologists and scientists in closely related fields posting this forum. There's no need to go scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Trying to examine information from supersport's latest sources is absurd from the get go. Even supersport compares them to "cheap dishrags." Why should we take them more seriously than he does?

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Neither one of these books is quackery....

There is no possibility that a poster citing ...

Atlantean death rays.
Edgar Cayce.
Hollow, expanding earth.
UFOlogists.
Psychic archaeology.
Native American creation myths.
Homoerotic fantasies.

... would know the difference.

[Minnesota]

Why bother replying at all if it isn't going to be scientific then? ;) Unless it's philosophical of course and then it doesn't belong in this section! ;)

Some people do it for amusement and others do it because they haven't caught on yet. If you bother to check, you'll notice I haven't replied to supersport for quite some time.

[supersport]

It's amazing how many people in here have fallen for the neo-darwinist, materialistic fairytale that genes define the organism. What you people don't seem to understand is that the human body works as a whole and cannot be cut into pieces to decipher. Physical parts of our body do not make us who we are. How could inanimate matter be intelligible? Is your leg intelligible? How about your lung? How about your cells?...(your cells are intelligible not because of their physical structure but because of how they're programmed.)

And it's no different with genes.......genes do not work as individual entities. Not only that, but genes have no well-defined continuity or boundaries...the expression of each gene, in reality, is an expression of the whole. Each gene is ultimately dependent on, and entangled with every other gene....and thus, gene expression -- which was suppressed for decades by you atheists -- is subject to instructions, modifications and adjustments according to internal physiological contexts and external environmental cues.

The other thing you've got screwed up is the concept of heredity: Unlike what you guys have always said, there is no pre-determined genetic program for creating an organism, because an organism's genome can change in the course of development according to external conditions. Thus, it matters not how well adapted one's parents might have been because adaptation happens during development. This goes against the very fiber of your theory, which states that animals happen to emerge adapted because they got lucky enough to come from parents who were selected. But Heredity really has not so much to do with parents' genes, but more to do with the development of the whole organism as it interacts with its environmental contexts.. All of the developing organism's parts are highly responsive and in constant communication with all the other parts, and only change when change is appropriated by the whole. But it's this adaptivity to the environment during development where evolution -- if that's what you want to call it -- really happens. Consequently, lifeforms fates are not written in their inherited genes because each creature is an active participant in life and is able to create his own destiny. This, of course, shatters your whole reductionist, materialist worldview.

Ultimately, Lamarck will be proven right...or at least mostly right. Life is not about being in the right place at the right time. Organisms don't change before the environment changes, only to be selected....Organisms change after the environment changes because each creature is an active, autonomous being which is open to the environment and able to induce a dynamic transformation if needed. And the reality is your silly theory is screwed. You people are hanging on to an outdated mechanism of RMNS when there are perfectly good, proven mechanisms that do the same thing, only better and without so much waste (death.): Non-random mutations, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, gene regulation, reverse transcriptions, phenotypic plasticity and more, all of which point to rapid evoltion by way of the actions and behaviors of individual organisms.

Too bad, so sad....Neo-darwinism is dying a slow painful death....all you've got in front of you is more misery and defections from all kinds of scientists.

[FreezBee]

It's amazing how many people in here have fallen for the neo-darwinist, materialistic fairytale that genes define the organism.

Genes do not define an organism, but genetic evolution deals with the genes.

[QUOTE=supersport]What you people don't seem to understand is that the human body works as a whole and cannot be cut into pieces to decipher. Physical parts of our body do not make us who we are. How could inanimate matter be intelligible? Is your leg intelligible? How about your lung? How about your cells?...(your cells are intelligible not because of their physical structure but because of how they're programmed.) 8/QUOTE]

What program are you talking about?
QUOTE]


- FreezBee