enjoy

http://anarchyinyourhead.com

I believe in evolution. I know it's bad for a conservative to feel that way but hey, no ones perfect.

(02-14-2009 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution. I know it's bad for a conservative to feel that way but hey, no ones perfect.

I have no idea why you feel that rational thought using empirical scientific data is anything to feel bad about. I don't know if Darwin's theory is correct or not...but...I think it is brilliant and I see support for it in the natural world. Eventually,man will know the answer to these questions...and science and technology will give them to us. I hope it happens in our lifetime. If so...A brand new world will also have accompanied the solving of these questions....The possibilities at the time of that revelation will be suddenly endless for mankind....Why?...Because we will then understand....It's ALL up to us as to what we make of our future.

(02-14-2009 11:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution. I know it's bad for a conservative to feel that way but hey, no ones perfect.

I have no idea why you feel that rational thought using empirical scientific data is anything to feel bad about.

In this case that's not at all the issue.

(02-15-2009 08:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 11:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution. I know it's bad for a conservative to feel that way but hey, no ones perfect.

I have no idea why you feel that rational thought using empirical scientific data is anything to feel bad about.

In this case that's not at all the issue.

Well then just how do you think Steve has derived his belief system on this issue?....blind faith,indoctrination or misinformation?

(02-15-2009 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-15-2009 08:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 11:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution. I know it's bad for a conservative to feel that way but hey, no ones perfect.

I have no idea why you feel that rational thought using empirical scientific data is anything to feel bad about.

In this case that's not at all the issue.

Well then just how do you think Steve has derived his belief system on this issue?....blind faith,indoctrination or misinformation?

Common sense.

(02-15-2009 10:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-15-2009 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-15-2009 08:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 11:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution. I know it's bad for a conservative to feel that way but hey, no ones perfect.

I have no idea why you feel that rational thought using empirical scientific data is anything to feel bad about.

In this case that's not at all the issue.

Well then just how do you think Steve has derived his belief system on this issue?....blind faith,indoctrination or misinformation?

Common sense.

I'm in your court on this one...but...I am totally open to being proven wrong on this issue. I see enough evidence in the natural world to support the theory, but it would not surprise me to find that CD was not totally correct in his theory. Time will tell.

(02-15-2009 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-15-2009 08:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 11:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-14-2009 10:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution. I know it's bad for a conservative to feel that way but hey, no ones perfect.

I have no idea why you feel that rational thought using empirical scientific data is anything to feel bad about.

In this case that's not at all the issue.

Well then just how do you think Steve has derived his belief system on this issue?....blind faith,indoctrination or misinformation?

Yes.

I'm open to new data too. But to date, I haven't seen much to support these theories of evolution.

And I'll point out that it is intentional that the biology that you're taught and exposed to in the popular media is interpreted in terms of Evolution. What you claim is "common sense" is largely indoctrination, b/c you're not typically shown alternative ideas.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12579

(02-16-2009 09:03 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And I'll point out that it is intentional that the biology that you're taught and exposed to in the popular media is interpreted in terms of Evolution. What you claim is "common sense" is largely indoctrination, b/c you're not typically shown alternative ideas.

Torch, I respectfully disagree. I was born and raised a Catholic. I went to Catholic school, was taught by nuns, was baptized and confirmed. If anything, the indoctrination you speak of would have me believing in creation and Adam and Eve. For a variety of reasons I drifted away from religion (but I respect people who have faith). Evolution makes perfect sense to me.

(02-16-2009 01:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 09:03 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And I'll point out that it is intentional that the biology that you're taught and exposed to in the popular media is interpreted in terms of Evolution. What you claim is "common sense" is largely indoctrination, b/c you're not typically shown alternative ideas.

Torch, I respectfully disagree. I was born and raised a Catholic. I went to Catholic school, was taught by nuns, was baptized and confirmed. If anything, the indoctrination you speak of would have me believing in creation and Adam and Eve. For a variety of reasons I drifted away from religion (but I respect people who have faith). Evolution makes perfect sense to me.

Fair enough smn. I'm not here saying people can't believein evolution, I'm suggesting that my observation is that current evolutionary theories are lacking.

(02-16-2009 01:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Fair enough smn. I'm not here saying people can't believein evolution, I'm suggesting that my observation is that current evolutionary theories are lacking.

Your observation of current evolutionary theories also thinks that animals can jump across taxonomic classes in a single generation. As soon as your understanding advances past "The Sneetches", you might be taken for something other than a complete idiot in this area.

(02-17-2009 09:39 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(02-16-2009 01:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Fair enough smn. I'm not here saying people can't believein evolution, I'm suggesting that my observation is that current evolutionary theories are lacking.

Your observation of current evolutionary theories also thinks that animals can jump across taxonomic classes in a single generation. As soon as your understanding advances past "The Sneetches", you might be taken for something other than a complete idiot in this area.

*Yawn* Yes, I'm such an idot.
Of course gradualism disagrees with the fossil record, and even the staunchest of evolutionists (SJ Gould) don't deny it...yet you continue to cite the dogma, chapter and verse.

I know about these theories, more than you'd like to admit. That's why I am comfortable pointing out their flaws. That's what "peer review" really means, and why I'm a better scientist than the neo-religionists who blindly support it and try to censor the heretics don't.

(02-17-2009 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Of course gradualism disagrees with the fossil record, and even the staunchest of evolutionists (SJ Gould) don't deny it...yet you continue to cite the dogma, chapter and verse.

I know about these theories, more than you'd like to admit. That's why I am comfortable pointing out their flaws. That's what "peer review" really means, and why I'm a better scientist than the neo-religionists who blindly support it and try to censor the heretics don't.

C'mon now. I don't particularly care that you're an idiot as its not something you can do too much about. Don't be a liar as well - you can control that.

I said nothing at all about gradualism, as you claim. My only comment on rates of change was relative to your erroneous suggestion that new species magically appear, in violating of well-established conservation of mass and energy laws of the physical universe. There's legitimate discussion going on about the pace of evolutionary change when it occurs. It's a mechanistic argument about the slope of the change. There is absolutely no scientific evidence, either in the fossil, geologic, or genetic record that suggests that indicates that the change is instantaneous (i.e. there is a discontinuity in the slope) in the evolutionary tree (which isn't really a true tree as Darwin originally suggested, but that's a different topic altogether) as you have repeatedly proposed. None.

Take your yaks for instant. Baby yak has to have a mommy and daddy, and those yaks also had to have parents, etc. You stated that "once a yak, always a yak". That would imply that there should be gentically identical yaks all the way to the dawn of time, or at some point there must have been an abiogenesis or spontaneous generation of modern day yak along the way. We know that that hasn't occurred from the Yak fossil record, or at least there is a scientifically supported plausible explanation of yak evolution from its ancestors in the literature if you can read Chinese.

I'll give you credit - you know your discovery institute talking points (history of science, quote the scientific log, pretend that one hoax invalidates all science, etc.) But "scientist capable of peer review" on this area - not even close. If you want to do science to support your claims, by all means get an approprate degree in something other than the "Discovery Intitute's Philosophy of Science degree" and use the scientific method to prove your claims or provide any positive supporting evidence. Until then, stop pretending that those who have actually done the work, generated the data that we have developed our understanding of the process, are all part of some vast conspiracy to undermine your personal religious dogma.

I am by no means saying that evolutionary theory will be identical in 200 years as it is now, just as it is not the same as when Darwin proposed of it. Of course new findings will improve our understanding of the mechanisms at work here. I am confident in saying that the theory will be much closer in 200 years than anything related to the intelligent design hypothesis on the subject.

(02-17-2009 03:05 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(02-17-2009 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Of course gradualism disagrees with the fossil record, and even the staunchest of evolutionists (SJ Gould) don't deny it...yet you continue to cite the dogma, chapter and verse.

I know about these theories, more than you'd like to admit. That's why I am comfortable pointing out their flaws. That's what "peer review" really means, and why I'm a better scientist than the neo-religionists who blindly support it and try to censor the heretics don't.

C'mon now. I don't particularly care that you're an idiot as its not something you can do too much about. Don't be a liar as well - you can control that.

I said nothing at all about gradualism, as you claim. My only comment on rates of change was relative to your erroneous suggestion that new species magically appear, in violating of well-established conservation of mass and energy laws of the physical universe.

While I know that evolutionists like to pretend they're scientists...this has nothing to do w/ the laws of thermodynamics.

Quote: There's legitimate discussion going on about the pace of evolutionary change when it occurs. It's a mechanistic argument about the slope of the change. There is absolutely no scientific evidence, either in the fossil, geologic, or genetic record that suggests that indicates that the change is instantaneous (i.e. there is a discontinuity in the slope)

What slope? You keep pretending like this is some sort of quantitative science.
The fact is that changes in fossils occur abruptly. Within a given geological epoch. That upsets the original description of evolution, to which you referred.

So Gould came up w/ his puncuated equilibium theory, which is a nice way of saying, "We're stuck clinging to blind faith at the moment, but this guess is as good as any."

Quote:Take your yaks for instant. Baby yak has to have a mommy and daddy, and those yaks also had to have parents, etc. You stated that "once a yak, always a yak". That would imply that there should be gentically identical yaks all the way to the dawn of time,

It does no such thing. But, if you didn't have straw men arguments, you wouldn't have much at all.

Quote: or at some point there must have been an abiogenesis or spontaneous generation of modern day yak along the way. We know that that hasn't occurred from the Yak fossil record, or at least there is a scientifically supported plausible explanation of yak evolution from its ancestors in the literature if you can read Chinese.

Chinese or not, the fossil record really doesn't support these theories...that's why the fossil guy (Gould) came up w/ a new theory.

Quote:I'll give you credit - you know your discovery institute talking points (history of science, quote the scientific log, pretend that one hoax invalidates all science, etc.)

One hoax? I listed 3 or 4 already...and that doesn't cover them all.

Quote:Until then, stop pretending that those who have actually done the work, generated the data that we have developed our understanding of the process,

Just like Priestly's discussion of phlogiston. http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/phlogiston.html
Just like those cold fusion guys. Or the N-ray guy. Or the geocentric universe astronomers. Or the memory water guys.

Lots of hard work, data, and understanding from all those folks.

A couple people thought they detected cold fusion. Nobody else was able to confirm it. The idea was dead in the water pretty quickly, a flash in the pan.

I created everything on Earth, then it evolved.

End of Story.

(02-17-2009 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  A couple people thought they detected cold fusion. Nobody else was able to confirm it. The idea was dead in the water pretty quickly, a flash in the pan.

Well, beaker. ;-)

(02-17-2009 03:20 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  While I know that evolutionists like to pretend they're scientists...this has nothing to do w/ the laws of thermodynamics.

I know plenty of evolutionists who are great scientists. I know some who are not-so-great scientists as well. The only pretend scientist I see here is you.

So, by what mechanism do you propose your so called intelligent designer generates new species? Does he fiddle within the DNA of embryos in the wombs of other animals who give birth to the new species? Or does the designer simply generate two copies of a new species out of midair when he decides its time to speciate? I'm not even asking for scientific evidence (as you have none), just trying to get a handle on what you're going to win the Nobel Prize for once you prove it.

Quote: What slope? You keep pretending like this is some sort of quantitative science.

You admit populations change over time. To get from population A to population B, there has to be some pathway. I think that it's a continuous pathway, you seem to think there is some tunneling involved.

Quote:The fact is that changes in fossils occur abruptly. Within a given geological epoch.

Abrupt is not instantaneous (and epochs are not exactly short lengths of time). Can you take a derivative? Once you've learned that, then we can talk.

Quote:That upsets the original description of evolution, to which you referred.

Strawman much? We've been through this before - idiot=okay, liar notsomuch. You're venturing back into liar territory again.

Referred to, not said was completely accurate. You probably don't realize this, but Newton wasn't right when he developed his laws of motion, either. It took a guy named Einstein to come along an introduce a new term into his equations that takes into account what really happens near the speed of light. That doesn't mean that Newton isn't a significantly important figure in scientific history, even if he was off slightly in his original formulation.

Quote:So Gould came up w/ his puncuated equilibium theory, which is a nice way of saying, "We're stuck clinging to blind faith at the moment, but this guess is as good as any."

I hardly think modifying a theory once additional evidence is gained is a bad thing. See Newton-Einstein discussion above.

Quote:if I, drtorch, didn't have straw men arguments, I wouldn't have much at all.

FIFY.

Quote:Chinese or not, the fossil record really doesn't support these theories...that's why the fossil guy (Gould) came up w/ a new theory.

The fossil record, geologic evidence, and the genetic evidence all support that evolution can, has, and does occur.

Feel free to pick up a journal sometime instead of waiting for new posts to come up at the Discovery Institute.

Quote:One hoax? I listed 3 or 4 already...and that doesn't cover them all.

None of which are used as foundation for modern evolutionary theory or invalidates the thousands of other papers not based on the hoax. Peer review obviously isn't perfect and doesn't catch everything, but it's a whole lot better than your method of making crap up and pretending it's science.

Quote:Just like Priestly's discussion of phlogiston. http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/phlogiston.html
Just like those cold fusion guys. Or the N-ray guy. Or the geocentric universe astronomers. Or the memory water guys.

Hmmm. Transistor theory postdates phlogiston. Must also be a bad theory. If one theory is bad, all of them must be bad, or at least the ones you decide on are when it is convenient.

Quote:Lots of hard work, data, and understanding from all those folks.

And all disproved through the channels of science. You want to prove Intelligent Design? Do it through the scientific channels. It's worked before and will do so again.

(02-17-2009 04:54 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  The fossil record, geologic evidence, and the genetic evidence all support that evolution can, has, and does occur.

You keep saying it, but you don't show it. Geesh, put the nail in the coffin, if it's so easy.

Except Gould stated plenty of times the fossil record says no such thing.

Even Shermer wrote in Sci Am, that there is no "one experiment" that proves evolution.

It's always tautological w/ evolutionists. That and ad homenim attacks when they're shown up.

Quote:Hmmm. Transistor theory postdates phlogiston. Must also be a bad theory. If one theory is bad, all of them must be bad, or at least the ones you decide on are when it is convenient.

Ahh, you're pretty adept w/ the fallacious reasoning.
I only pointed to the ones that don't withstand scientific scrutiny.

Quote:And all disproved through the channels of science.

Exactly my point. Current evolutionary theory is pretty well "disproved" through the channels of science.

Sorry that you're stuck in the 19th C. I'm sure you're about to discover helium any day now.

(02-17-2009 05:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Even Shermer wrote in Sci Am, that there is no "one experiment" that proves evolution.

Do you know what words mean? "Support" does not equal "prove".

Quote:Exactly my point. Current evolutionary theory is pretty well "disproved" through the channels of science.

Oh really? Citation, please. When are they going to start disbanding evolutionary biology departments and stop publishing all those journals?

I see you conveniently dodged the request for any scientific response for evidence for your model. Any specific reason why?

Say "hi!" to Lompoc whale for me.