It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 71
16
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Come now you claim to be a degreed individual. You can cope with multiple papers as sources. Assuming you are being honest about your education that is.


To argue a systematic review paper you'd have to go through each of its sources. In this case it was 102. I am not doing that. I would prefer empirical research or an animal research study with a concise point of evidence that phantom wants me to refute.




posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

When we have provided a single paper, you've never read one. We can tell, by your responses. So again I postulate your so called education is not what you make it out to be. I got through dozens of papers a day in my job, and I'm a working scientist, not an academic.

So toughen up, pick a paper, name it, talk to it, or admit you are out of your depth.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I spoke to many JW in the past and usually they are quite nice and prepared to consider an argument. At least, the younger generation, that is. The old farts are no good. You an old fart, Wil?

1. Instead of paying me the reciprocal courtesy of taking my response and arguments serious, you chose to spew more blabla from books that do nothing to elevate consciousness and add to the expansion of knowledge and understanding.
2. You simply copy/paste a line that you can use and copy/ paste some random crap. And what do you get: an Onan situation. You simply ejaculate where ever you can, however you can, mistaking this for reasoning. it is called lewd conduct. You could not lead a pi-ss up around a brewery.
3. If you had taken a serious interest in what I had written in response to you, you would have known I know all your tricks, sources and reasoning in futility. As I said, you are adding nothing new. A little bit to much caught up in your own game, egotist?
4. Did you actually donate to the organizations that provide you with these online resources? Or have you been parasitic on their good neighborly inclination.
5. Even humor is lost on you. Lighten up, cartman (I take it you are considered a good example in your group enough to warrant your JW.org cart. Or do you envy those who have such a cart and you want one too? So, how many hours and revisits are you now allowed to add to your field service report?)
6. Go back studying your evangelizing examples like Paul ( I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.) Maybe you'll find some answers as to how to emulate a more christ-like behavior.

My advice to you: Find a shrink and work through Steve Hassan's: " Combatting cult mind control" and get a live. Till then ... Shoo kiddie.

Satan's Orator.
edit on 29-11-2017 by Yvhmer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

A year seriously? Students are assigned this as homework due the next day. Depending on how good they get 2 to 5 hrs. Ive had to go over 40 in a weekend. I thought you were a scientist you lied to us !



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Exactly. As I said, as a professional Chemist (in that I work in industry, as opposed to an academic) I have to glean from papers daily. You learn to read them, and absorb the pertenant details fast. If Coop had gone to a decent University, he would be able to do this.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Isn't "Answers in Genesis University" accredited?




posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

A year seriously? Students are assigned this as homework due the next day. Depending on how good they get 2 to 5 hrs. Ive had to go over 40 in a weekend. I thought you were a scientist you lied to us !


No one can read 102 research articles in a day. Nor would I Want to do that, only to have my conclusions blindly dismissed anyway. You guys don't believe someone who was risen from the dead, so you're not going to believe some random guy on the internet.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

No idea
Not my monkey not my Circus
I'm begining to suspect Coop would be very unsettled to admit their actual education. I went to New Zealands Oldest University, Otago, its nothing spectacular, but it is a REAL university.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

(a) You have had longer than a day.

(b) Yes actually you can read that many in a day. Chances are you don't need to read them all however.

(c) You are yet to prove you have Chemistry or Neuroscience education neighbour.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Just let me know which part of the paper you think proves evolution and I will make my rebuttal. Every claim made in the paper resorts to a resource, of which there are 102. I am not going to make such a tremendous effort for you guys to erroneously dismiss whatever I say.

Again, let me know which part of the paper you think proves evolution and I will make my rebuttal, one piece of evidence at a time.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Dodging again? Do the damned work, either be a scientist, as you claim to have been trained, or admit you are not such. Prove us wrong, and do the work.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I told you to look at the references. You didn't open them because you didn't have time to open them. This is a very long paper explaining the mechanics of a system.

Either address the paper as it is with the references, with the experimental data and the conclusions or admit that you do not have the ability to do it.


There are 102 references and you asked me to read them. You gave me a homework assignment that would take the average student a year. Narrow the question to a specific part of the paper. There are nothing but assumptions in the paper so I can't really spear a phantom.


originally posted by: Phantom423

I want to know what book or publication you got that information from (that photons behave as waves until they are observed and then they behave like particles)



Take note now that you are unaware of the double slit experiment, so when you quickly google it you can't patronize me with your pedestal talk. Here is the basic experiment explained:



Couple of things here...

No, it wouldn't take a year for an average student to read through the material. If you were given the assignment in class on Monday, you would be expected to know the material when you return to class on Wednesday.

You keep claiming that papers that provide evidence of aspects of evolution are produced with a preconceived notion, I.e. that evolution is true which is Bull S#. The work is dome to try to understand something. If it turned out that it did not support any aspects of evolution or somehow falsified it, the paper would still be published and subject to peer review. It's about the data, not stacking the deck which is the basis for many of your posts.

And then the most ironic part is claiming that the paper is somehow theoretical, showing that the term doesn't quite mean what you believe it does while somehow touting QM as support for your very specific interpretation of god while not understanding that QM is indeed an entirely theoretical field comprised primarily of mathematical equations to provide possible explanations for phenomena that aren't yet understood or proposed explanations based on mathematical models.

And that doesn't even touch on your misunderstanding of the double slit experiment because double slit doesn't support your statement that photons do not exist materially until they are actually observed. Phage already covered that one though. I did get a chuckle though when I saw that you posted a video produced by new Age whackadoodles, Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, to support your personal interpretation of the Christian god.

Finally, I'm a tad befuddled at your trepidation over properly reviewing the paper than Phantom provided. Sure, at 40 pages it isn't the shortest paper but at the same time, with the amount of data, I would think it would be easier to find the fatal flaws in the research.

I've tried to stay out of the tit for tat of whether or not you have a degree in Chemistry but anyone with even a modest science background understands that you can't move the goalposts to such extreme measures as you're attempting to do here by demanding that someone else pick out a specific portion of the paper so that you can attempt to disprove the entire body of work based entirely on a small portion of the whole.

That simply isn't how things work and if you have a degree in any scientific discipline, you would know that. It's the entire corpus of the paper that supports the conclusions so either you understand the material and can falsify it, you understand the material and agree with their conclusions or you don't understand the material at all. Which of the 3 will it be?



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Just let me know which part of the paper you think proves evolution and I will make my rebuttal.






Every claim made in the paper resorts to a resource, of which there are 102.


The nerve of those cretins! Who do they think they are actually supporting their claims with actual citations, let alone 102 citations supporting their conclusions with additional evidence.


I am not going to make such a tremendous effort for you guys to erroneously dismiss whatever I say.


Again, I really enjoy the irony from someone whose nearly universal response to any information supporting biological evolution is that the research was done assuming that evolution is true (demonstrating an absolute void in understanding about how actual research is performed under the auspices of the scientific method) yet here you are assuming that you are absolutely infallible and that your conclusions are correct prior to learning the material.

It is because of positions like that, that the charges of intellectual dishonesty are levied at those promoting a young earth creation scenario. Not one of you has falsified any aspects of evolution and more importantly, not a single one of you has provided an iota of evidence supporting creation period let alone a young earth version of it.

So much for having a civil and rational dialogue if nobody who believe evolution to be false is willing to actually put in the work. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've sat down and read all of the arguments in favor of YEC so I actually understand both sides of the argument. This is why the charges of intellectual dishonesty are tossed around, because you guys generally don't understand either side of the argument and parrot online resources thst do nothing but feed into confirmation bias.


Again, let me know which part of the paper you think proves evolution and I will make my rebuttal, one piece of evidence at a time.


The entire paper is what you need to discuss. You can't pick apart a small detail and pretend it invalidates the entire piece. Again, intellectually dishonest.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Dodging again? Do the damned work, either be a scientist, as you claim to have been trained, or admit you are not such. Prove us wrong, and do the work.


The guy doesn't have a clue. All he had to do is focus in on the references that had experimental data. Then again, because he's not a scientist and is just a fraud and a scammer, he wouldn't recognize which references contained the experimental data.

Reference No. 18 is an example. If the jerk had read the paper, he should have keyed in on some of the comments on evolution. From there, all he had to do was go to those specific references (remember - above and to the right - I even gave him a clue!) and develop an argument based on that.

But instead, he looked at the title, saw that it was way out of his league (which everything in science is), then posted that he wasn't going to read 102 references. Of course, he never read the paper either. So much for intellectual curiosity.

I selected that paper intentionally because I knew it contained a massive amount of analytical data in the references. A scientist works with data, not verbal garbage. A scientist would have latched on to that data, pulled it apart, look at the methodology and THEN, and ONLY THEN, comment on the work.

His reaction to that review paper is exactly as I had anticipated. I have to congratulate myself on a very nice setup! Nailed him.

I love it when a plan comes together (who said that??)





edit on 29-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




Every claim made in the paper resorts to a resource, of which there are 102.

The nerve of those cretins! Who do they think they are actually supporting their claims with actual citations, let alone 102 citations supporting their conclusions with additional evidence.


That gets first prize for Poster of the Year. I can see it now for sale in the University shop - T shirts labeled with "Every claim made in the paper resorts to a resources! What should I do?". OMG, I am mortified!!!! One hundred and two references!!!

I have a final diagnosis: Foot-in-Mouth disease. No treatment. No cure. DOA


edit on 29-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t






Macro evolution can certainly be observed. It is why we use fruit flies or bacteria to do it with. You can see hundreds of generations over a short period of time so evolutionary changes can build up. For instance. The E. Coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment has witnessed the bacteria evolve to require aerobic citrate to survive (it should be noted that E. Coli not being able to survive in aerobic citrate is a defining feature of the bacteria to separate it from Salmonella).


These points struck me.


One possibility is that the Cit lineage activated a ‘‘cryptic’’ transporter (41), that is, some once-functional gene that has been silenced by mutation accumulation.
Link

The paper goes on to disagree with this idea.

But is it possible that the gene was there, but turned off?






The mutational activation of these genes suggests that they should be considered cryptic genes which have persisted in a silenced state since E. coli diverged from its Cit+ ancestor.
Link


Is it possible that this is a case of epigenetics, that a silenced gene was there the whole time and something triggered it to turn on, so that it could use citrate as a food source in an oxygenated environment?

I may not be understanding this possible explanation correctly, but wouldn't this be similar to turning a gene on, to allow Phantom to break down the alcohol in his martinis faster?

If a gene is there already and unexpressed, and then is expressed, is that considered evolution?

If Phantom stops drinking, and a gene is eventually turned off, is that de-evolution?



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

A year seriously? Students are assigned this as homework due the next day. Depending on how good they get 2 to 5 hrs. Ive had to go over 40 in a weekend. I thought you were a scientist you lied to us !


No one can read 102 research articles in a day. Nor would I Want to do that, only to have my conclusions blindly dismissed anyway. You guys don't believe someone who was risen from the dead, so you're not going to believe some random guy on the internet.


Here ill help you heres what i tell students on how to break down a paper.

1st you begin by reading the introduction, not the abstract. ...
Identify the big question. ...
Summarize the background in five sentences or less. What past research has shown,and any limitations. ...
Identify the specific question(s) ie research that tests one or more null hypotheses, identify it/them.What exactly are the authors trying to answer with their research? ...
Identify the approach. How are they going to answer our questions??? ...
Read the methods section. This is for you to understand the process ...
Read the results section. This is the evidence and also the most likely place to find an error.

Does this explain why you cant just pick a part of a paper to discuss? Each part serves a different purpose you have to treat it as a whole or it makes no sense.
edit on 11/29/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




How did variable NK-cell receptors and MHC class I ligands influence immunity, reproduction and human evolution?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Is this information correct?

Comparison of mouse and human genomes has shown that the biggest differences – in terms of both gene content and gene sequence -- occur in genes of the immune and reproductive systems



The sequence of the mouse genome is a key informational tool for understanding the contents of the human genome and a key experimental tool for biomedical research.
Link


But this says....


Why tests on mice may be of little use
Years of scientific research called into question as it is revealed that mice and men are genetically further apart than previously thought
Link



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

The paper is discussing the differences in gene content and their sequences. The article is about the efficacy of using mice as an analogue due to regulatory differences. In other words, the paper and the article are talking about entirely different things.

The paper focuses on the immune systems and how those differences play into evolutionary biology. The article in contrast is, as noted above, about why mice aren't as effective an analogue for human biology.

Each is about very different subjects.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

The word you're looking for is devolution. Not de-evolution. There is no such thing as devolution. That would imply that evolution has a direction or purpose. It doesn't.




top topics



 
16
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join