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.

 

Why Are Evo's Ignorant of Mendelian?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ulster
A Mathematician may use Euclidean Geometry in his study of Geometry and/or Mathematics. It doesn't make him a Euclideanist.

An Evolutionary biologist uses Darwinian natural selection in his study of natural selection or modern evolutionary synthesis but it doesn't make him/her a Darwinist either.


Now they like to be known as, "Neo-Darwinist". At least the scientist that work on evolution theory, do. I know the public believers, like to be known as, ( the only rational ones).

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Howie47]




posted on May, 18 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
Your making a good argument for Intelligent Design theory! Yes bacteria is very complex. We don't find any very simple forms of life on this planet. Which is what Darwin suspected when He devised his theory.
All that complexity didn't just 'pop' into existence!

This from the person that said For macro evolution to happen, new information must be created in the genes. Which is incorrect.

You make a number of logical fallacies here.
1) Equivocation - "complex life" seams roughly whatever YOU want it to mean. Some organisms are not even slightly complex in science's eyes. It is tautologous because it allows you to define things as "Very Complex" Complexity is much more than the number of base pairs. Just because a bacteria has a trillion base pairs does not make it "complex"

2) Sweeping Generalization - You assume that ancient simple forms of life are similar to today's simplest life.

3) A Fallacy of Strawman - All life is not complex. We find MANY simple life forms. Self-replication and evolution has been observed in viruses holding less than 50 base pairs. There is no mathematical limit on how simple life can be nor an agreement on what is life. There are plant viroids with 1 molecule.

You brought up ID and I see no proof whatsoever in any ID hypothesis let alone a cogent Scientific theroy.

Answer me this. How did this "Creator" manufacture. Where did the "Creator" get the initial materials to design ? Exactly how did the Designer implement Its Design(s)? How many Designers were there?

What is the exact message of ID?

[edit on 5/18/2008 by Ulster]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   


1) Equivocation - "complex life" seams roughly whatever YOU want it to mean. Some organisms are not even slightly complex in science's eyes. It is tautologous because it allows you to define things as "Very Complex" Complexity is much more than the number of base pairs. Just because a bacteria has a trillion base pairs does not make it "complex"
reply to post by Ulster
 


Yeah, I guess it is very difficult for you to understand, ulster.
A can opener, fairly simple design.
A computer, a very complex design.
And yes, complexity isn't just a number. It is a (specified number or equation, that equals something.) In bacteria, the base pairs, equals
the physical makeup of a actual bacteria. Which is a very complex design. Like the computer. Not like the can opener.
Comprendo?



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
Yeah, I guess it is very difficult for you to understand, ulster.
A can opener, fairly simple design.
A computer, a very complex design.
And yes, complexity isn't just a number. It is a (specified number or equation, that equals something.) In bacteria, the base pairs, equals
the physical makeup of a actual bacteria. Which is a very complex design. Like the computer. Not like the can opener. Comprendo?


Can openers and computers are not Living systems. The same rules of complexity therefore can not be used for inanimate objects and animate ones. That is a Composition Fallacy.

>The base Pairs equals the physical makeups of an actual bacteria.
Not quite.

>Which is a very complex design.
Oh so now it's not just "complex". You are now qualifying complexity as "Complex design".
Well see you have to prove there is design then. Which you can't do.

Anyway...
Your analogy doesn't work in biology even if we skip all the parts about comparing inanimate objects to animate ones and base pairs equating to the complexity of the whole.

A eukaryote has LESS genetic material in it's mitochondria than the proteobacteria it descends from. A eukaryote is more complex than a prokaryote.

See, complexity does not stem from the complexity of individual cells but in the interactions of these within the cell and body and their interaction with other organisms.

Doesn't matter though because you are talking about Complex "design"
Ok, for there to be design there has to be a designer. I'll ask once again.

1) Where did the designer(s) the material to design things with ?
2) How did they manufacture their/his/her/it's design ?
3) How many Designers were there?
4) What is the message of ID ?

Please don't be disingenuous again. I answer your questions. Please answer mine.



[edit on 5/18/2008 by Ulster]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   


1) Where did the designer(s) the material to design things with ?
reply to post by Ulster
 


etc. etc. etc.


If the philosophical materialist grip on science could be broken. We would start to find the answers to your questions.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Why are Evos ignorant of Mendelian?

Because their tiny microchip brains are really not much good for anything more sophisticated that regulating fuel injection and adjusting suspension rates.

This is an Evo.


To be precise, a Mitsubishi Evo IX, 2007 model.

This is an evolutionist.


To be precise, the very wonderful Leda Cosmides, Ph. D.

Look at them carefully, Howie. Compare and contrast. Learn to tell the difference.

Are you starting to get it now?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The brains are about the same size and they both ware red.
Now you've got me confussed!



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 

Well, if you can't tell the difference between a car and a human being, it's no wonder you're confused.

And you know, hurling insults at a lady one hasn't even been introduced to is not very good form, especially from a '61-year-old single male'. I'd have thought you old enough to know better.

But civilized behaviour from the champion of a barbaric doctribe is probably a little too much to expect.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


That from he who has an avatar, that shows a baby being ripped from it's mothers arms, to be killed by the establishment. Such is those who trust man, and his establishments. Many have come and gone, they all shall be crushed to dust. You be on the wrong side!



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47etc. etc. etc.
If the philosophical materialist grip on science could be broken. We would start to find the answers to your questions.


No one has ever witnessed anything being created nor destroyed. To say that means it must of been created is antithetical to any form of logic.

You have already stated what leads science astray IE: Philosophy and materialism. So what in your estimation should science be using to find answers then ? Pseudoscience ? Mythology ?

You expect science to defend itself against anything you throw at it. It gladly accepts the challenge because that whats science is. Questioning, observation and disproving hypothesis.

So how about you defend not just a hypothesis but a FULL BLOWN Theroy ! WOW Should be easy.

Where did the designer(s) get the material to design things with ?
Answer: He poofed them into existence.

ID is a thinly veiled religious argument.It is a rejection of the study of natural causes by which physical science examines the world and consequently cannot be science. It attempts to define casual relationships with the supernatural, which by definition is not natural nor scientific.

Id can never be a Scientific theory. EVER.

Oh and you Flagellum video was thoroughly trounced in a Court of Law by REAL scientists. www.youtube.com...




[edit on 5/20/2008 by Ulster]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


IF I had my way, I would call Evo's, "baboon people". Because, (as the post from them attest too); they keep dumbing themselves down. So they can maintain their belief in Evolution. Becoming dumb as babooms!
By the way. That is a Mitsubishi Evolution car. They have abbreviated it too (Evo). Which legitimizes my doing the same!



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

Since Ibn al-Haytham first created the scientific method over 1,000 years ago, it has not changed. Let me outline it for you:

1. Observation
2. Statement of problem
3. Formulation of hypothesis
4. Testing of hypothesis using experimentation
5. Analysis of experimental results
6. Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion
7. Publication of findings

That's the scientific method. You should be able to clearly see there is nothing in there about atheism, or god.


Has the theory of evolution satisfied all the criteria. Yes or no answer would be nice.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This is would be nice to discuss. From the King of EVO's himself.

'The Origin of Species':

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 7


And this is what a scientist said:

But, as biochemist Michael Behe points out the most serious flaw in Darwin's Theory is that due to the 'irreducible complexity' associated with the biochemistry at a molecular and cellular level, the theory cannot be applied to the evolution of life at this fundamental level, which implies other factors must be operating in the evolutionary process. 4
www.vision.net.au...

So if we use Darwin's reasoning with scientific evidence does his theory break down?

[edit on 20-5-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Has the theory of evolution satisfied all the criteria. Yes or no answer would be nice.


Yes it has. Many 1000's of times. The fact of evolution has been tested and scrutinized by the theory of evolution for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

As for Behe: His own university biology department released this statement. "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Most, or all, of the examples of irreducible complexity are based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and considering the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance.

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

It's BUNK.

So let me ask a question about this Irreducible complexity. Hopefully you can back up you "theroy" like you expect others to back up theirs.

A. What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?

1. What testable predictions does ID make?
2. What observation could, in principle, falsify ID?
3.How does ID account for suboptimal or bad design, such as the blind spot in human eyes?
4. How many designers were there ?
5. Where did the designer(s) get their base materials in which to design ?
6. Are design events still occurring today? If not, when was the last one?
7. Do you also advocate "teaching the controversy" ?





[edit on 5/20/2008 by Ulster]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   


In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."


What the (un-scientific) judge said was: No papers on ID had been
published in peer reviewed journals. First that wasn't true. Secondly, new
ID papers are no longer "allowed". Even if some just suggest anything like ID. There paper will not be published. See the movie "Expelled"!

Also, Evolution, is not observable, repeatable' in laboratory experiments, or falsifiable. So it is nothing but pseudoscience.
Don't start playing your "shell game", with micro and macro evolution.
Already discussed in this thread and debunked. They are entirely different. As top Evo scientist, admit. What's Darwin Got To Do With It? Book

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Howie47]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Ulster
 





A. What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?


So this is your own, argument from ignorance. Since we don't know the all the answers we must reject the hypotheses and replace it with any made up story we like. Like Evolution theory.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Originally posted by Ulster


Yes it has. Many 1000's of times.
You mean that we have obsereved evolution taking place in an experiment. I did'nt know that. That is why i asked. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge on this topic so i might pick your brain again if that is cool. Have there also been experiments that replicate the origins of life emerging from the primordial soup, as that would have been the first step of evolution would it not, and the easiest to reproduce given how simple life was then.


Most, or all, of the examples of irreducible complexity are based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and considering the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance.
I was directed to this idea and wondered what the forum's thoughts would be as the OP has often brought up "complexity" in some posts.


So let me ask a question about this Irreducible complexity. Hopefully you can back up you "theroy" like you expect others to back up theirs.
I don't believe i claimed to have a theroy. Does that make evolution, yours. I thought a fundamental mechanism of learning was asking questions and assume nothing. What am i supposed to be backing up, the fact that i asked a few questions??


A. What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?

1. What testable predictions does ID make?
2. What observation could, in principle, falsify ID?
3.How does ID account for suboptimal or bad design, such as the blind spot in human eyes?
4. How many designers were there ?
5. Where did the designer(s) get their base materials in which to design ?
6. Are design events still occurring today? If not, when was the last one?
7. Do you also advocate "teaching the controversy" ?


If you have asumed that i am here to promote this theory purely because i quoted Behe then you are wrong. I thought the point of this thread was to ask why Evolutionists ignore or fail to explain characteristic within nature that do not fit into the Evolution Model/theory. ie Like aspects Mendel that the OP stated etc.

I have a few more questions i will post, it would be great if you would share your thoughts again.









[edit on 20-5-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


No, it means ID can't be taken seriously as a scientific theory unless it has some scientific theory behind it. That's it. Evolution has managed it, ID hasn't, yet people (like you) scream for ID to be taken as seriously, or more seriously, than Evolution, when ID can't even get out of the starting blocks without showing everyone how ridiculously baseless a theory it is.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Howie47
 


No, it means ID can't be taken seriously as a scientific theory unless it has some scientific theory behind it. That's it. Evolution has managed it, ID hasn't, yet people (like you) scream for ID to be taken as seriously, or more seriously, than Evolution, when ID can't even get out of the starting blocks without showing everyone how ridiculously baseless a theory it is.


I've never heard a viable "theory of Evolution", that answers all the questions. Maybe you would like to enlighten us all?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
What the (un-scientific) judge said was: No papers on ID had been
published in peer reviewed journals. First that wasn't true.

Citation Please
National Center for Science Education disagrees with you. Citing a total of zero.

"This search of several hundred thousand scientific reports published over several years failed to discover a single instance of biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's diversity."

Oxford university goes on to say, "Yes, Michael Behe is a scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. "


Also, Evolution, is not observable, repeatable' in laboratory experiments, or falsifiable. So it is nothing but pseudoscience.
Don't start playing your "shell game", with micro and macro evolution.
Already discussed in this thread and debunked. They are entirely different.

Evolution IS observable: Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history.
Evolution is repeatable:Helianthus anomalus. Also population studies and genetic analysis allow specific and repeatable testing. Much of modern medicine's arsenal of drug therapy is based on the results of such evolutionary studies.
Evolution is falsifiable:There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
* a static fossil record
* true chimeras
* observations of organisms being created
* some bunnies in the Precambrian



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join