(02-17-2009 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  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.

Heh, it's hard to take that seriously when the first source you cite is an ill-conceived Newsweek article that inexplicably posits epigenetics as either revolutionary or a threat to evolutionary theory.

(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.

The Pope has said that evolution is true (and that it can also coexist quite nicely with Christian belief) so you aren't even straying from your Catholic roots. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who said "The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

(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.

snm, I to believe that there is evolution. However, Evolution cannot and does not even try to explain "How Life Began". Which is really the answer we all are looking for. As with everything of infinite scale, large or small answers just beget more questions.

(02-17-2009 05:34 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(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?

Hopefully pretty soon. It ticks me off to see money wasted on such things. Probably be opening Astrology Depts pretty soon.

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

I never advocated any model in these threads. How's that for specific?

(02-17-2009 04:54 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

The Brilliant DrTorch Wrote: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.

Thanks for being so quantitative.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quantitative

Quote:

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.

You never provided a function.

(02-17-2009 05:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Sorry that you're stuck in the 19th C.

I believe you're the one stuck in the 19th century.

Paley's design philosophy was very early 19th century. ID hasn't advanced scientifically beyond that.

If were less interested in phlogiston research, you might learn that DNA was actually discovered in the 20th century. The genetic evidence which supports modern evolutionary theory postdates that. Hardly 19th century, no matter how many times you dishonestly try to pin that characterization on it.

Quote: Probably be opening Astrology Depts pretty soon.

There was that ID-based science department that tried to start up in Texas, but failed. That's probably the closest thing to astrology under the guise of science that we have come to so far.

Quote:I never advocated any model in these threads.

Ah yes - the blind faith and magic approach to "science". Models, mechnanisms, supporting data, and logic not required.

As many times as you link breakpoint and discovery institute, it's not overly difficult to determine your viewpoint.

Quote:Thanks for being so quantitative.

you're welcome.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5659/793