Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Phantom423

Again it depends on the University. For example Otago University (where I went) the first year papers served the Health Science Professions (Medical, dental, Pharmacy schools etc) .... thus the First year papers are condensed papers. At second year, what you describe sure.

This holds for most first year papers servicing the Health Sciences (Biochemistry, Physics, the Biological sciences etc).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
And sorry but I'm not buying your claim of having science degrees.

It's no difficulty getting such a degree. They bring in the pawns by the dozen as long as they pay tuition. They make you feel special by making you feel like you have some sort of special knowledge. It was so easy it made me realize how pathetic the entire field of study was, and just how many holes were in the swiss cheese they were selling. I ate up the story in highschool, but further study regarding complex neural structures in college made me realize such meticulous neuronal circuitry could not be due to random mutation.

For you, a photoshopped pterodactyl with civil war soldiers and ancient art is empirical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, so pardon my skepticism of your claims.

What bothers me is your complete lack of interest in the abundance of dinosaur depictions throughout history. Any true scientist would have a field day with such empirical evidence. But you chauvinists are stuck in the dark ages of material reductionism and refuse to consider anything that defies your theoretical dogma.

Here's a Komodo dragon which still exists today. It's not far fetched to think that people would be astounded by the sight of this thing - and probably their minds exaggerated the experience, hence the drawings. Could be a lot of reptiles that existed in ancient times. The drawings are not evidence. They're suggestions of what people either saw or were thinking. They could be real but chances are they are simply exaggerations of some wild reptile that existed at that time.

a reply to: Noinden

Writing was always a big thing when I went to school - didn't matter the subject - every one had to write - so science, history, social studies, etc. not a bad thing though - you get over writer's block real quick!

a reply to: Phantom423

I did my undergrad in the early 90s. It was that way, though less intense. When I taught labs it was the same (though more intense).

Universities in the commonwealth tend to go for three year Bachelors, and four year honors degrees.... thus you get a very intense grounding in the Sciences (your chosen one in particular).

a reply to: Noinden

Yeah, I always tell people that science is about getting your hands dirty - if you haven't done lab work, you haven't done science. It's not all in the books. The lab is where you learn what it's all about - with good mentors of course.

Look at this thing - now that's a nightmare that might motivate an artist to draw it - however, I doubt the subject would cooperate for a sitting! That's why the drawings are probably inclusive of a lot of imagination.

a reply to: Phantom423

Certainly in the case of Chemistry (given that is what cooperton is saying one of their degrees is in). If you can't either perform a reaction (or attempt too), analyse something or make a measurement, you are not doing chemistry. I am pretty sure that neuroscience is the same.

Now I don't know what sort of university they went too or type of degree they started (let alone got). But I am going to assume a Bachelors of Science.

Degrees in Chemistry and Neuroscience do not qualify one to say evolution is bunk I certainly learned much more when I came back to University in 2010, and did a quick Bioinformatics degree to be more well rounded. That was Biochemistry, Genetics (and Stats (which I'd minored in anyway) and Computer Science)... that opened my eyes to the areas which are applicable in discussions on evolution. While my dissertation at the end of that was into Cancer research, the methods can be applied to evolution. After all, you need to identify the mutation(s) which causes cancer, just like you can understand evolution genetically through mutations.

I fully expect someone to chime in with "there are no positive mutations" .... demonstrating they can dogma good

a reply to: Noinden

That's very true about measurement - chemistry and physics in particular are all about measurement. That goes to the instrumentation, algorithms and methods we use to achieve results. What these folks never understand is that nothing in science is set in stone. Anyone who can come up with sufficient evidence to challenge a current model of anything is free to challenge the current thinking. Happens all the time in physics. But the evidence must stand up to the criteria set for investigative research. Primarily, it must be reproducible. The guys around here want to jump over the nitty gritty details and draw conclusions which are unacceptable to the scientific community. They expect everyone to jump up and down and sing Hallelujah because they made a great discovery. It should be that easy...................................

a reply to: Phantom423

Speaking as a Synthetic Chemist at heart. Measurement is important, but producing is important too. After all, one needs something to measure.

But yes you and I have constantly reminded them "science changes with the evidence". They either ignore that, or think that is a weakness in science (clearly it was flawed ... well yes, and the new evidence is a strengthening the story ).

They also forget, that being a scientist, does not preclude having a spiritual life.

a reply to: Noinden

They also forget, that being a scientist, does not preclude having a spiritual life.

Listening to your conversation with Phantom. Did you know that all self known knowledge, acquired over many lifetimes accrues, and depending on you passion for the subject, you will likely pursue similar careers in subsequent lives.

By the time scientists get to to the point where they depart the Human Kingdom, they will be perfectly trained to be biological geneticists. They will go on to create life forms themselves and will display their deep rooted knowledge of genetic coding. They will expand their consciousness and spiritual knowledge, promoting unity and deep Saintly love for humanity.

People will always continue to pursue that, which is their greatest joy.

Musicians, Artists all Creatives, Scientists who push the boundaries of their own knowledge, Philosophers, who can’t help but agree, “saying, well yes, yes of course, well we agree then" slap their thighs before moving on to something useful like helping humanity or nature.

I have to go for an ultrasound on my kidneys next week, so I arrived at the conclusions that The Morrigan isn’t paricularly bright in biology.

Well chaps, keep up the good work serving humanity, you can have NO idea how good it gets.

a reply to: kennyb72

Can you prove that, or is that a Unverifiable Personal or possibly Shared Gnosis? Because that is the only way I'm going to stomach what you wrote.

(a) What are non Biological Geneticists?
(b) There are a number of beliefs in the various reincatnationist faiths, over how reincarnation works. While the various IE tribes tend to think your soul returned to the tribe, the idea that you accrued knowledge over time is not such a beleif.
(c) As I've said you have no idea about An Morrigan.
(d) You have no idea about me either.

Run along bee boy. You still suck at esoterics I am awaiting a quote from your Guru, or more likely just a "read his works" (I have, they are not particularly deep)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I am sure those scientists who do subscribe to some creator/designer have been peer reviewed.

How does a "creator/designer" preclude evolution?

Ask the evolutionists that claim such people aren't credible.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I don't know any evolutionists.
Can you provide contact information? A University with a Department of Evolution maybe?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What is an evolutionist? I've said before, if one agrees Science is a thing, you don't pick and choose the theories that count. Do you know any Gravitaionalists? Thermodynamicists? Kineticists? Perhaps Centrifugal Forcists? I certainly don't know any SN1 or SN2 ists.

For anyone who has trouble with the terminology "evolutionist(s)" or likes to make fun of that while feigning ignorance of its use in published articles that can be found in databases of so-called scientific articles (even after haven been given a link to such a database and list of articles), try asking the ones who published these articles (which includes those who refer to themselves as evolutionists) what it means or who it's referring to:

evolutionists - PubMed - NCBI

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What is an evolutionist? I've said before, if one agrees Science is a thing, you don't pick and choose the theories that count. Do you know any Gravitaionalists? Thermodynamicists? Kineticists? Perhaps Centrifugal Forcists? I certainly don't know any SN1 or SN2 ists.

Gravity, kinetics, thermodynamics, etc are all laws that are repeatable in a lab. Evolution as the cause of the diversity of life is not.

This is the problem with the chauvinists in the scientific community, they force this theory down peoples throats and excommunicate everyone who disagrees. I know this is the case because through 8 years of rigorous scholarly study in the sciences I was never once posed the possibility that evolution may be wrong. This is a great impediment to the progression of science and philosophy.

a reply to: cooperton

Yet (for example) we don't know what causes gravity. We know what causes evolution (mutations to DNA).

We've witnessed evolution in a persons lifetime (antibiotic resistance anyone?).

You're "8 years rigorous study" can not have been that rigorous now can it? Mind you, as I said, neither Chemistry nor neuroscience are sciences associated with evolution. Did you do much biochem?

a reply to: whereislogic

Except the way it used by the creationist gang is wrong.

(a) the ending of "ist" in this sense implies that it should be applied to a specialist in evolution. However every time one of the creationist crowd whip this out, and wave it around, they imply that not to be the case, and that anyone who agrees that evolution is the most likely answer, is an evolutionist. Hence when I make fun of you and others for using it, and talk about thermodynamists, kineticists etc, it implies that one can only take certain scientific theories to be held to be true.

(b) The way that "evolutionist" is used in your cited papers (did you read them all?) is in the sense used in (a)

(c) Debating that evolutionist is a term you apply correctly, is a strawman argument. It ignores that this entire thread can be discarded, as non scientific nonsense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I don't know any evolutionists.
Can you provide contact information? A University with a Department of Evolution maybe?

Nice try. Not convincing, but a nice try.

We all know full well it doesn't come as a degree. It's a mindset, and one you share.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I don't know any evolutionists.
Can you provide contact information? A University with a Department of Evolution maybe?

Nice try. Not convincing, but a nice try.

We all know full well it doesn't come as a degree. It's a mindset, and one you share.

A mindset? Do you mean somone who evaluated the evidence and formed a conclusion? Do you know most people see proof of evolution every day. Look at the varieties of dogs we have. Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population. Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed. Therefore, the following generations more commonly have the desired traits. So we know the process works we even domesticated livestock. So arguing it doesnt occur is stupid. However evolution doesnt explain the origin of life, and was never meant to for that matter