Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 211 of 238 (287561)
02-17-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wounded King
02-16-2006 9:31 AM


Re: A critique of Sidelined's critique of Evopeach's claims
Wounded King
P.S. I don't think the Nobel they won was for Peace.
Thanks for pointing that out WK
I don't know why that one slipped in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Wounded King, posted 02-16-2006 9:31 AM Wounded King has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 212 of 238 (287588)
02-17-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Evopeach
02-13-2006 10:29 AM


Re: Going back off topic
So, do you agree that Evolutionary Theory is NOT "non-mathematical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Evopeach, posted 02-13-2006 10:29 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:31 AM nator has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 213 of 238 (287596)
02-17-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by nator
02-17-2006 10:17 AM


Re: Going back off topic
I just remembered looking through Origin of the Species and not seeing anything more mathmatical that measuring finch beaks.
Did I miss the calculus,diff eq , complex variable, vetor and tensor analysis and approximate methods... what page are those on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 10:17 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 10:34 AM Evopeach has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 214 of 238 (287597)
02-17-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Evopeach
02-15-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Going back off topic
So, what professional scientific work has Gish done since he was a student in California?
What new advances has he contributed to the body of scientific knowldge?
I'm talking about peer-reviewed papers which have spawned further research or have resulted in new techniques or technologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Evopeach, posted 02-15-2006 5:36 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:33 AM nator has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 215 of 238 (287599)
02-17-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by nator
02-17-2006 10:31 AM


Re: Going back off topic
Here are a few of the many peer reviewed research papers published by the FRAUD.
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 10:31 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 10:36 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 225 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-17-2006 2:07 PM Evopeach has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 216 of 238 (287600)
02-17-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 10:31 AM


Re: Going back off topic
The Origin of Species is not the totality of The Modern Synthesis, any more than Galileo's early work is not the totality of Modern Cosmology and Astronomy.
So you agree that The Modern Synthesis is NOT non-mathematical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:31 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:41 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 217 of 238 (287602)
02-17-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 10:33 AM


Re: Going back off topic
Excellent.
What has he published since he became a Creationist, and what has he published using Creationist concepts?
IOW, how productive has he been as a professional scientist using Creation Science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:33 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:45 AM nator has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 218 of 238 (287604)
02-17-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by nator
02-17-2006 10:34 AM


Re: Going back off topic
Math is used in various absrruce forms (see Pregorine) to prop up a subjective set of tenents.
Evolution works in reverse of truly great science in that an objective and mathmatical formulation is used to capture tand demonstrate the theory and then experimentation and empirical observation follows.
Or do you actually believe Newton sat under the apple tree and Galileo climbed the Tower first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 10:34 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Omnivorous, posted 02-17-2006 11:03 AM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 219 of 238 (287609)
02-17-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by nator
02-17-2006 10:36 AM


Re: Going back off topic
ONce he became a creationist formally by employment he was blackballed from any evolutionary publication as is everyone else.
Are you saying he was once a talented, well educated, productive and useful scientist but upon becoming a creationist he bacame a useless, moron.
Life has phases each of which has its validity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 10:36 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 1:59 PM Evopeach has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 220 of 238 (287616)
02-17-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 10:41 AM


Of course observation comes first
Evolution works in reverse of truly great science in that an objective and mathmatical formulation is used to capture tand demonstrate the theory and then experimentation and empirical observation follows.
Or do you actually believe Newton sat under the apple tree and Galileo climbed the Tower first.
Do you actually believe Newton formulated a mathematical expression before he made any observations of gravity at work?
The tale of the falling apple may be apocryphal, but it serves very well as an exemplar of naturalistic observation.
Scientific hypotheses are made to explain observed phenomena. Then the hypothesis is used to make predictions, and the predictions are tested.
Darwin made observations, then formulated his hypothesis. The modern synthesis has made predictions, both with and without mathematical tools, and the success of those predictions has strongly confirmed the theory.
Most "great science" did not first pop into existence as formulae.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:41 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 11:15 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 221 of 238 (287627)
02-17-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Omnivorous
02-17-2006 11:03 AM


Re: Of course observation comes first
So the theory of relativity was originally:
I was watching some energy and mass interchange in my back yard and the idea that sunlight made it possible for me to see led me to E=mc**2
Later that week I felt the sudden impusle of gravity waves and the pelting of gravitons and the time seemed to shrink while my ruler was alternately lenghthening and shrinking before my very eyes.
I was totally bent and warped out of shape by the observations and immediately started to think how I could possibly express these observations in mathmatical terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Omnivorous, posted 02-17-2006 11:03 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-17-2006 2:21 PM Evopeach has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 222 of 238 (287642)
02-17-2006 11:39 AM


Topic Drift Warning
Most threads are shut down after they reach 300 posts. That means there are less than 80 posts left to discuss the topic. If the topic drift continues it will be less because the thread will be shut down early. The last post that addresses replicator reliability is Message 192.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 223 of 238 (287684)
02-17-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Percy
02-16-2006 8:04 AM


Rates of spontaneous abortion
Percy writes:
Another factor that you may be ignoring is that the measurements of the reliability of replication in human DNA could be post-facto, i.e., after a viable embryo forms. The number of failures before this stage is not well understood, and measurements of mutation rates during sperm/egg union are probably lacking. The point is that you're probably overestimating the reliability of replication, but I can't say by how much.
There is one factor we can get a numerical handle on:
The rate of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) in detected pregnancies is 15-20% (about 1 in 6). Some studies suggest the overall rate may be as high as 50% (with many miscarriages so early as to have not been clinically confirmed), with the mother experiencing only a "late period." The underlying cause is overwhelmingly fetal chromosomal abnormality; consequently, human births with chromosomal abnormalities are rare. The risk of a second miscarriage is no higher; i.e., the risk remains at 15-20%, suggesting an error in the genetic process itself, not in the parental material.
More info here.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-16-2006 8:04 AM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 224 of 238 (287687)
02-17-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 10:45 AM


Re: Going back off topic
quote:
ONce he became a creationist formally by employment he was blackballed from any evolutionary publication as is everyone else.
Submissions for scholraly journals are usually annonymous, so it is quite possible for anyone to publish a journal article. All they have to do is produce work that is of a certain standard of quality.
They don't even have to be a professional scientist, as a little 10 year old girl named Emily Rosa who's work was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrates.
Behe continues to publish in scholarly journals even though he is a proponent of theistic evolution of a sort.
There's no black balling.
quote:
Are you saying he was once a talented, well educated, productive and useful scientist but upon becoming a creationist he bacame a useless, moron.
I am not saying he became a moron.
I am saying he ceased being a scientist.
quote:
Life has phases each of which has its validity.
Indeed.
Gish left behind any semblance of his scientific life long ago, yet continues to use his long-past history of Biology work to impress people who are uninformed in the science he mangles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:45 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 3:05 PM nator has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 225 of 238 (287694)
02-17-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Evopeach
02-17-2006 10:33 AM


Hate to pile on
I hate to pile on Evopeach... But are there any examples of Creation science papers he has published? Even a paper (if it's scientific) from a creation science publication (do they have those?) might be of interest.
Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Evopeach, posted 02-17-2006 10:33 AM Evopeach has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024