"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dead786 · 08-02-2013 07:22AM

nagirrac wrote: »

Have you really been banned 785 times? Wow, what a hero..

Banning people is pure tyranny. See my rebelliousness.:)
still enjoying the game of life. :cool:
no tension no worry.. these Ids, the life with in them.. I know how it makes people sick.. poor prisoners of this unknown world... can't free their souls:eek:

nagirrac · 08-02-2013 07:28AM

We are only starting to learn evolution in terms of mechanisms. Less than 10 years ago we thought the 20,000 or so genes in our DNA regulated everything related to being a human, now we know it is the 98% of what was called "junk" DNA that regulates our complexity. This is why we have struggled so much with understanding disease, because disease does not come from genes but from gene regulation. The same gene can do many differnet things in different cells.

We are still like 4 year old children who just discovered a clock on the beach and took the cover off.

dead786 · 08-02-2013 07:32AM

nagirrac wrote: »

We are only starting to learn evolution in terms of mechanisms. Less than 10 years ago we thought the 20,000 or so genes in our DNA regulated everything related to being a human, now we know it is the 98% of what was called "junk" DNA that regulates our complexity. This is why we have struggled so much with understanding disease, because disease does not come from genes but from gene regulation. The same gene can do many differnet things in different cells.

We are still like 4 year old children who just discovered a clock on the beach and took the cover off.

I have no problem with peaceful evolution. I believe in peace... I support minority.. when majority forces the minority to believe what they believe... People believe what they want to believe.. Don't force other people... Here in this thread.. some people become personal and force people what they believe... which makes evolution a religion. I take side of minority.. It doesn't matter whether their beliefs are wrong or true... Here in this thread JC was minority...

BizzyC · 08-02-2013 10:14AM

The thing that always gets to me when theists go on about atheist belief in evolution is the way they think we're bound to it in the same way they bind themselves to religion.

If another theory came out tomorrow that provided a better explanation for observations in our environment while making fewer assumptions, I'd be all over it.

The Mad Hatter · 08-02-2013 10:39AM

dead786 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs

"Imagine no religion"

endacl · 08-02-2013 11:24AM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"Imagine no religion"

Big ask. Maybe simpler to start with 'Imagine no trolling', or Imagine no Soapboxing'.

'Imagine imaginative thinking' anyone?

robindch · 08-02-2013 11:54AM

mickrock wrote: »

Dickie Dawkins has some interesting things to say about evidence: [...] What a nincompoop! (BTW Dickie, there is evidence for evolution but none for evolution by natural selection.) [...] How deluded can he get? He has reached the conclusion that Darwinism is correct from the outset and to hell with the evidence or lack of it.

FFS, mick -- can't you find it within yourself to contribute your point of view to the debate at an adult level?

If you continue at that juvenile level, you'll be banned for what I think will be your third and final time.

/sheesh

Sarky · 08-02-2013 01:25PM

dead786 wrote: »

you have lost your cause. Because you start banning people. JC is victim of your tyranny. Deadone is still fighting. With what mouth you are talking.. You cut people's tongues and then you think you have won.. You're a loser sarky, with all of your dogmas, with all of your creeds.. with all of your misery.... face the truth.. the moderators who are ruling in this foram are real world tyrant... they can't face truth.. they support you in propagating your religion but can't bear other people... I feel pity on all of converts here...:pac:

Oh hey kiddo. I'd forgotten you existed. I know you're reading this. You're too arrogant to stay away, and you would be just terrified at the thought of people forgetting you. Still stalking and harassing lady posters because they're smarter than you and they dare to tell you when you're wrong? Still unable to control your basest desires like an undisciplined child, and blaming everyone but yourself? Still pirating computer software and claiming it's ok because Allah never mentioned it in the Koran? Oh, and are you still claiming that the moon landings were faked?

And now, to forget you ever existed again. It's remarkably easy.

oldrnwisr · 08-02-2013 02:13PM

mickrock wrote: »

The great philosopher of science Karl Popper said:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories."

Later he partly recanted this because of the pressure from the Darwinist mob.

I know Robin has asked you to debate at an adult level but personally I'd be happy if you could debate honestly first.

Firstly, I shouldn't have to explain why making an appeal to authority is a bad argument. Not that Karl Popper could have been considered much of an authority on biology.

Secondly, you really should try not to quote mine people, particularly when borrowing the quote-mine from creationist sources.

What Popper continues to say after the above quote is:

"And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work."

Also, Popper didn't recant due to peer pressure. He admitted to getting it wrong, as most good scientists should be able to do. He showed in his book "Objective Knowledge" in 1972 that his understanding of natural selection was deeply flawed, particularly since he equates natural selection with "survival of the fittest."

Having realised his mistake, Popper corrected his earlier work, stating:

"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."

This was written by Popper in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind" in 1978.

So, in summary, a man with no expertise in biology makes a mistake and misunderstands a biological theory. He realises his mistake and corrects it and this is supposed to be evidence of what exactly?

Oh, and another thing. Even if Popper, in 1976 when he said that, had been correct, to ignore the scientific advances in the intervening 40 years is at best foolish and worst downright dishonest.

Why are you wasting our time with this crap?

dlofnep · 08-02-2013 02:34PM

Mickrock just got owned. Again.

Sarky · 08-02-2013 02:35PM

I'm coining the phrase "To Mickroll" someone. It's mine. You can't have it.

endacl · 08-02-2013 02:55PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Mickrock just got owned. Again.

Thats kinda tragic. Only noobs should be owned...

PopePalpatine · 08-02-2013 03:53PM

Sarky wrote: »

I'm coining the phrase "To Mickroll" someone. It's mine. You can't have it.

What would you say instead of "never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna turn around and desert you"?

seamus · 08-02-2013 03:54PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What would you say instead of "never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna turn around and desert you"?

Just remove all the "you"s from that sentence.

mickrock · 08-02-2013 09:06PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Also, Popper didn't recant due to peer pressure.

Popper originally made his statement that Darwinism was untestable and a metaphysical research program in his 1974 book Unended Quest.

He made his "recantation" in 1980, yet in a revised edition of the book in 1982 he lets his original assertion stand, which is quite telling.

oldrnwisr · 08-02-2013 09:29PM

mickrock wrote: »

Popper originally made his statement that Darwinism was untestable and a metaphysical research program in his 1974 book Unended Quest.

He made his "recantation" in 1980, yet in a revised edition of the book in 1982 he lets his original assertion stand, which is quite telling.

Boy, your fact checking really sucks.

First of all, Unended Quest was published in 1976 not 1974.

Secondly, as I previously stated, Popper "recanted" or admitted he was wrong originally in an article called "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind which was published in Dialectica (32:339-355) or you can read it for yourself here. To reiterate:

"Nevertheless I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."

I'm not sure if you're referring to Halstead's article about Popper in New Scientist in 1980 because I can't otherwise find a reference for a 1980 Popper work. Either way you're wrong.

Finally, you don't seem to have gotten the point of my post. Who cares what Popper had to say. He is one man. You're making an appeal to authority and a bad appeal to authority since a) Popper wasn't a biologist, he wasn't even a scientist so he's hardly an authority b) he demonstrates in "Objective Knowledge" that he misunderstood natural selection and c) he no longer holds (or held) the position you are basing your argument on.

Finally, as much respect as I have for Popper in other areas, I am reminded of Feynman's famous quote:

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

mickrock · 08-02-2013 09:42PM

robindch wrote: »

FFS, mick -- can't you find it within yourself to contribute your point of view to the debate at an adult level?

If you continue at that juvenile level, you'll be banned for what I think will be your third and final time.

/sheesh

I believe I've only been banned once so far.

Regarding juvenile behaviour, the way people who don't share your point of view are treated is also pretty juvenile e.g. Calling ID proponents IDiots, referring to William Dembski as Dumbski, calling creationists creatards etc. If your side are allowed to dish this sort of stuff out you should also be prepared to take it. Yet if I have a pop at Dawkins I'm liable to be banned!

Corkfeen · 08-02-2013 09:50PM

mickrock wrote: »

I believe I've only been banned once so far.

Regarding juvenile behaviour, the way people who don't share your point of view are treated is also pretty juvenile e.g. Calling ID proponents IDiots, referring to William Dembski as Dumbski, calling creationists creatards etc. If your side are allowed to dish this sort of stuff out you should also be prepared to take it. Yet if I have a pop at Dawkins I'm liable to be banned!

You haven't proven any of your claims and plenty of disproving of your points and others has been done that is backed up with sources. You aren't even addressing oldrnwisr's points because you're lacking basic knowledge on the topic you're discussing.

mickrock · 08-02-2013 10:07PM

Feynman also said:

"The only way to have real success in science, the field I'm familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good and what's bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty."

This doesn't seem to be happening with evolution/Darwinism.

Popinjay · 08-02-2013 10:35PM

Careful Mick, two more posts and you might start believing in evolution...

Popinjay · 08-02-2013 10:38PM

mickrock wrote: »

describe the evidence

Are you planning on doing this any time soon?

Doctor Strange · 08-02-2013 11:43PM

mickrock wrote: »

Feynman also said:

"The only way to have real success in science, the field I'm familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good and what's bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty."

This doesn't seem to be happening with evolution/Darwinism.

Ummmm, yeah, sure, whatever. I fail to see what a quote to do with displaying the transparency of science has to do with this though.

Full quote
"The only way to have real success in science, the field I'm familiar with, is
to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it
should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good and
what's bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard
integrity and honesty.

In other fields, such as business, it's different. For example, almost every
advertisement you see is obviously designed, in some way or another, to fool
the customer: the print that they don't want you to read is small; the
statements are written in an obscure way. It is obvious to anybody that the
product is not being presented in a scientific and balanced way. Therefore,
in the selling business, there's a lack of integrity."

Zombrex · 09-02-2013 01:05AM

mickrock wrote: »

This doesn't seem to be happening with evolution/Darwinism.

You admit that we can observe mutations in genetic code altering structure of organisms.

Despite your claims otherwise this alteration to genetic code has been observed to add new function to organisms, both by add new genetic code (making chromosomes longer), but also by rearranging genetic code producing new functionality. In fact new functionality has been observed by the removal all together of genetic code.

Despite your claims otherwise we have observed such alterations to push organisms over the species barrier, which while being a rather arbitrary classification is rather significant given that organisms stop mating with previous organisms. You continue to claim this cannot happen, but give no reason why it cannot happen, nor an alternative explanation for what has been observed.

Despite your claims otherwise we have observed massive structural changes in organisms, such as single cell organisms evolving into multicell organisms, within lab conditions. You continue to claim this cannot happen, but give no reason why it cannot happen, nor an alternative explanation for what has been observed.

You claim that mutation cannot alter organisms beyond certain limits. It is difficult to mount a serious response to this because you refuse to define what "limits" you are talking about, but given the point above (single cell to multi cell in only a few thousand generations, observed by scientists) this "limit" you suppose seems rather ridiculous.

The fossil record shows transitional forms between major structural changes, such as in the evolution of the whale, which while on their own would not amount to proof of evolution, when coupled with both the observations we have of mutations in the lab, and what we know about DNA, paint a clear picture that these species evolved from one major structural form to another over millions of years.

You keep ignoring this, or refusing to properly engage, and instead start every discussion of with the same points that have already been refuted.

You then claim we are persecuting you by refusing to listen. In fact you are refusing to listen or mount any serious rebuke to the points being put to you. Your claims have been debunked, at least the claims you actually make in enough detail to actually be worth discussion, which is the minority.

You criticise evolution for not making sense but then refuse to detail the alternatives you claim better explain life on Earth. This shows that you are disingenuous in your claim that you are searching for the best explanation. You cannot be looking for the best explanation because clearly your alternative explanation fails your own standards.

And yet you are surprised when you are met with annoyance on this forum.

Lucy8080 · 09-02-2013 02:46AM

dlofnep wrote: »

Mickrock just got owned. Again.

Every attempt to educate /debate/question here ....is ruined by this sort of post, and those who thank it.

It's an appeal to the crowd...and it is obvious.

.

mickrock · 09-02-2013 03:00AM

Zombrex wrote: »

You admit that we can observe mutations in genetic code altering structure of organisms.

Despite your claims otherwise this alteration to genetic code has been observed to add new function to organisms, both by add new genetic code (making chromosomes longer), but also by rearranging genetic code producing new functionality. In fact new functionality has been observed by the removal all together of genetic code.

Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)

Zombrex wrote: »

Despite your claims otherwise we have observed such alterations to push organisms over the species barrier, which while being a rather arbitrary classification is rather significant given that organisms stop mating with previous organisms.

Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?

Zombrex wrote: »

Despite your claims otherwise we have observed massive structural changes in organisms, such as single cell organisms evolving into multicell organisms, within lab conditions.

I'm almost certain that this has never been observed.

Zombrex wrote: »

You criticise evolution for not making sense

No, I question Darwinism for not making sense.

endacl · 09-02-2013 03:36AM

mickrock wrote: »

Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)

Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?

I'm almost certain that this has never been observed.

No, I question Darwinism for not making sense.

Your argument is not evolving.

Sycopat · 09-02-2013 04:59AM

mickrock wrote: »

Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)

And what exactly is wrong with those examples of new functionality? Other than that they are observations obtained from experiments capable of being carried out within a single human lifetime...

Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?

Depends on how you define complexity(and to a lesser extent observation, and species), but sure.

Just to annoy you I'll go with Lenski's E.coli: They gained a function not previously present in their lineage. They didn't lose a function in order to gain it, therefore the new function was additional. Lenski's bacteria have more functions than their ancestors.

Complexity!

I'm almost certain that this has never been observed.

Good thing you said 'almost'. Note these are yeast. That might be important later...

No, I question Darwinism for not making sense.

But it only doesn't make sense when you refuse to examine the evidence yourself. Which is what you have done by repeatedly ignoring the points made by people doing the legwork for you only to wait a few weeks and come back to make the same arguments you made last time. Again.

I don't want you to become a supporter of evolution because I said so, or because sarky said so, or even because oldrnwisr said so. I want you to become a supporter of evolution because you've actually looked at the things that have been put in front of you and thought about them for yourself.

The thing that saddens and angers me is that you have no intention of examining the evidence put before you. You are here to present your ill informed point of view unceasingly in the vain hope that you can force us to concede that scientists should take your baseless opinions seriously.

The thing that utterly enrages me is that you have no intention of providing a basis for your own opinions. You just want to sit back and claim there are issues. What are the issues. We can't address them if you refuse to elaborate on them. If you actually provided some evidence, or observations, or reasoning which you think supports your view point so I could consider it or understand it I'd be much less inclined to treat you like you're wasting my time. I'd probably reject it, but I could explain why I reject it. Instead the best we can get from you is the opinions of other people. And opinions are like arseholes.

I'm also going to take this opportunity to take issue with your constant referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection as 'darwinism'. I feel you are only doing so in an attempt to make evolution out to be some ancient hypothesis we're just going along with out of tradition.

You should refer to the theory as 'modern evolutionary synthesis' or 'evolution' for short.

Popinjay · 09-02-2013 09:52AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Every attempt to educate /debate/question here ....is ruined by this sort of post, and those who thank it.

It's an appeal to the crowd...and it is obvious.

Sometimes debate is rendered pointless by the sheer lack of facts presented by the opposition; you can't punch fog, as the saying goes.

Regardless of what some might like to think, the crowd is not always wrong.

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, as the other saying goes.

mickrock · 09-02-2013 06:54PM

Sycopat wrote: »

Depends on how you define complexity(and to a lesser extent observation, and species), but sure.

Just to annoy you I'll go with Lenski's E.coli: They gained a function not previously present in their lineage. They didn't lose a function in order to gain it, therefore the new function was additional. Lenski's bacteria have more functions than their ancestors.

Complexity!

Lenski's E.coli gained an advantage by the breaking or blunting of existing functional information. Nothing new was created, whether genes or molecular machinery.

It's hardly a ringing endorsement of the supposed creative power of Darwinian mechanisms.

Sycopat wrote: »

Good thing you said 'almost'. Note these are yeast. That might be important later...

A cluster of unicellular organisms isn't a muticellular organism.

"Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff's experiment.
"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly.""

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html

Sycopat wrote: »

I'm also going to take this opportunity to take issue with your constant referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection as 'darwinism'. I feel you are only doing so in an attempt to make evolution out to be some ancient hypothesis we're just going along with out of tradition.

You should refer to the theory as 'modern evolutionary synthesis' or 'evolution' for short.

I refer to it as Darwinism because everyone knows that it is blind and undirected.

I believe in evolution and that it is an intelligent, directed process. If I referred to Darwinism as evolution we'd be talking at cross purposes.

nagirrac · 09-02-2013 08:04PM

A bit surprising nobody has mentioned the ENCODE project as yet. This is the largest research project ever undertaking in science with hundereds of scientists working in collaboration across several countries. Although the project is ongoing a major update was released in late 2012 and the results are fascinating.

At the time the human genome was first decoded a decade ago scientists were surprised to find that only 1.5% of human DNA was involved in coding. The remaining 98.5% was referred to as "junk" DNA. This was perfectly in keeping with the new-Darwinian model of evolution being a messy process with random mutation leading to a fragmented DNA structutre with only a small % actually functional. Evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins have argued that the presence of so such junk DNA is validation for random mutation as the primary mechanism that drives natural selection.

The ENCODE project has looked at the functionality of DNA in a variety of human cells. The tentative conclusions are that 80% of DNA is biologically active and involved in regulation within human cells. It is regulation that turns genes on and off, for example leading to one type of cell becoming a brain cell and another a skin cell. The study has only looked at 147 types of cells so far and as the human body has thousands of different types of cells, there are strong reasons to suggest that the 80% number wll rise to 100% after further research.

The initial results published by the ENCODE team has been vigerously debated in scientific and non scientific circles. Some of the attacks on the researchers are incredible, given the scope of the project and the fact that the scientists are just reporting their results and not drawing any conclusions as yet. The problem for many scientists and especially non scientists is that the results suggest intelligent design causation rather than random causation so of course they must be wrong. I don't think we have ever seen such an example of anti-science hysteria in action, perhaps since Gallileo's time.

The next 5 years will be fascinating as the ENCODE project proceeds and evolutionary biologists fit the results into evolutionary models. We could well be on the cusp of another major breakthrough in our understanding of how evolution progresses.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments