Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 155 of 318 (450508)
01-22-2008 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
01-22-2008 9:48 AM


Just to add to what Percy said
Some of us may be highly educated in scientific fields, but that dosn't mean that we can only understand what fellow scientists are saying. I'm sure I'm only one of many on here who have experience of teaching at undergraduate and post-graduate level. To be able to acheive this with any modicum of success requires that we strive to explain things to students in language which is pitched at their level of education in the given subject matter. No-one involved in teaching just expects students to learn facts parrot fashion in language they don't understand. We want them to understand why certain things happen and how they happen, not just that they happen.
The more I learned in my career in science, the more I discovered I didn't know in my own field! That meant having to be constantly open to new ideas, to asking questions, to learning.
Those creationists who come on here without much of an idea about, for example, genetics and proceed to tell us that they know more about the subject than the specialists tend to get pretty short shrift. They don't come here to learn, they don't come here to debate - they come here to show how much more knowledgable they are about a subject they know nothing about and they will not believe that they know nothing about it.
A poster on here once claimed that the number of possible sequences of animo acids which could make up a chain of DNA was huge, since there were about 20 amino acids to choose from for each position on the DNA molecule. On that basis, he declared evolution to have been impossible and presented his calculations to demonstrate this.
When it was pointed out to this poster that DNA chains weren't made up of amino acids, but nucleotide bases, of which there are only four (thus making his calculations worthless) he was having none of it. He knew best. I make chains of DNA on a daily basis - it's called PCR (polymerase chain reaction). I add the building blocks and an enzyme to glue them together. I add four nucleotide building blocks. I add no amino acids (other than those which make up the enzyme). At the end of it, I have the same number of amino acids I started with, very few nucleotide bases left and I now have strands of DNA made from the nucleotide bases I added. Even after this, our poster still insisted that amino acids make up the sequence in DNA, not nucleotides.
In the face of this sort of obstinacy, what are we to do? We can repeat ourselves until we're blue in the face, but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong. It's very hard to remain polite.
Sometimes we feel that we may have pitched our explanation at too technical a level and we try to simplify things - that will bring accusations of condescension. If we don't simplify it, we're accused of being unable to communicate with people at a level that a non-scientist can understand.
Another aspect of communication which seems to be a problem is that scientists use very tight definitions. This ensures that written communication between scientists cannot be misunderstood just because one scientist defines a certain term differently from another. Even very subtle differences can cause misunderstanding. Much of the scientific training is concerned with precision of the language used. One of the problems with the way some creationists write is that they are not used to this precision and use certain terms as if they are interchangeable, use terms which they regard as "close enough" or refuse to accept that the scientific definition of a term is not the same as the colloquial definition. I've lost count of the number of times that certain posters have announced that evolution is "just a theory and not a Law." They do not know and will not accept that, in science, the word "theory" is used differently from the way it is used in non-scientific communication.
If creationists want to debate science with scientists, they have to be prepared to accept scientific definitions. If they want to debate theology, then scientists would have to be prepared to use theological terminology. If they want to debate law, then both parties would have to be prepared to use legal terminology. You don't get to make up your own definitions and terminology, there has to be consensus in any given field if communication is to be successful. Sadly creationists who foray into science are not prepared to do this and so communication doesn't happen. Their posts are so open to misinterpretation because they won't express themselves clearly - they prefer to stick to their own peculiar definitions and then wonder why no-one gets what they're trying to say. Even when they are told what the problem is, they refuse to do anything about it, then complain that the problem still exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 9:48 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 4:38 AM Trixie has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 195 of 318 (450762)
01-23-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by pelican
01-23-2008 4:38 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Dameeva, nice selective quoting out of context!
You quote me as saying
but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong.
Note carefully that the quote begins with a lower case "b" in addition to the fact that sentences tend not to begin with "but". You missed out the start of the sentence. The whole thing reads
We can repeat ourselves until we're blue in the face, but these people will still insist that they are right and we are wrong.
The next question to ask is what the actual sentence is referring to and the answers are to be found, funnily enough, in the preceding sentence which is actually a question
In the face of this sort of obstinacy, what are we to do?
This gives rise to yet another question - what is being refered to by the phrase
this sort of obstinacy
Given that the word "this" appears in the sentence a reasonable conclusion is that previous sentences refer to a particular occurrence. Lo and behold, the previous two paragraphs give us all this information.
A poster on here once claimed that the number of possible sequences of animo acids which could make up a chain of DNA was huge, since there were about 20 amino acids to choose from for each position on the DNA molecule. On that basis, he declared evolution to have been impossible and presented his calculations to demonstrate this.
When it was pointed out to this poster that DNA chains weren't made up of amino acids, but nucleotide bases, of which there are only four (thus making his calculations worthless) he was having none of it. He knew best. I make chains of DNA on a daily basis - it's called PCR (polymerase chain reaction). I add the building blocks and an enzyme to glue them together. I add four nucleotide building blocks. I add no amino acids (other than those which make up the enzyme). At the end of it, I have the same number of amino acids I started with, very few nucleotide bases left and I now have strands of DNA made from the nucleotide bases I added. Even after this, our poster still insisted that amino acids make up the sequence in DNA, not nucleotides.
So we can conclude that the obstinacy referred to is absolutely nothing to do with beliefs or opinions and everything to do with hard, incontrovertable facts. You can state until you're blue in the face that whether DNA is made up of a chain of amino acids or made up of a chain of nucleotides is a matter of opinion, but you're dead wrong. As an exercise, why don't you attempt to support the equal validity of the two "opinions" (note that "opinions" is in quotation marks).
This is what I was explaining in my first post. The person making the claim knew damn all about molecular biology, demonstrated admirably by his insistence that DNA is made up of a chain of amino acids. Even when corrected by a practicing molecular biologist, he still insisted that he was right. Now, I could have gone into the lab and tried it his way, but I've watched my way work for years. Not only that, but every molecular biologist in the world knows that it works and many of them actually do it every day in the lab and it works right in front of their eyes. I'm not the only one. Now explain to me why equal weight should be given to this other person's "opinion". He could have gone off and checked what I was telling him - I certainly went off to find sources for what he was saying and the only sources I found were his very own posts on EvC. Sadly, he didn't, he was so certain that he was right that he refused to do this simple thing. To this day he's probably posting on other fora with his "wonderful" calculation.
In the face of the obstinacy described in the paragraph immediately preceding this sentence, I ask again, what do we do? Your idea of giving equal weight to their opinions and claiming that the difference is a result of physical and spiritual approaches doesn't wash, and you'd realise this if you take the trouble to read what I've written with a modicum of care, rather than reading only selected highlights.
You've actually provided a perfect example of what I call "sloppy reading". You've cherry-picked only those bits that you like, ignored the rest and built up a strawman of my position. I don't think you've done this intentionally.
Your other point which you brought up first concerns whether I listen to creationists arguments and evidence concerning creation "with understanding". I'd love to listen to their evidence concerning creation "with understanding", but they've yet to present any. Believe me, I've been listening to creationists on this site for about four years and, yes, I do understand where they're coming from. Here is a statement of my beliefs in relation to this matter
I believe in God the Father, the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through Him all things were made.
For us men (and women, hopefully) and for our salvation He came down from Heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man.
For our sins He was crucified under Pontius Pilot. He suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one holy, catholic (read "inclusive", not Roman Catholic) and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Care to point out to me where my beliefs are built solely on physical evidence? You've actually made a bunch of assumptions and built your position on them. What happens to your position when the assumptions are shown to be false?
I have asked myself the questions that you ask me. I do have some sympathy for the position of creationists. I came to this board as a scientist and a Christian, neither one of which was ascendant over the other. My beliefs as a Chrisian have to gel with the physical evidence I see with my own eyes. However the scientist in me has to draw a very hard distinction between faith/belief and evidence. I would never debate my Christianity based on evidence, since it is faithbased. I would never debate science based on faith, since it is evidence-based.
To Schraff and Admin:_ I'm sorry if some of this is a tad off-topic, but I think it might help dameeva understand exactly where I'm coming from.
Edited by Trixie, : To add my brand new signature and see what it looks like!

I don't consider rape awful
I've studied it
I've seen pictures of the victims
I also interviewed one
Isn't that what evolution involves?
I try not to talk to many women about it either, they seem to be very immature
Amen, EvC Chatroom, 23.1.08

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 4:38 AM pelican has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 225 of 318 (450862)
01-24-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by molbiogirl
01-24-2008 11:46 AM


Re: First step.
Thanks for finding that molbiogirl. I'm still trying to hunt down the calculation based on 20 amino acids being used. If you come across it, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by molbiogirl, posted 01-24-2008 11:46 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by molbiogirl, posted 01-24-2008 1:09 PM Trixie has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 235 of 318 (450906)
01-24-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by pelican
01-24-2008 6:27 PM


Re: First step.
You could always try hunting around on the internet for evidence which either agrees or disagrees with the strongly held belief. The example I gave can be investigated quickly.
How many other people out there believe that DNA is made up of a chain of amino acids? What evidence is there for ths position? What evidence is there against this position? If you set out to answer those questions you'll rapidly become aware that the strongly held belief of our "DNA is made from amino acids" friend has no support whatsoever and in fact there are mountains of evidence which totally refute it.
The reason I didn't go and hunt all this evidence out when the original post was made was because, having worked in the field for a number of years I've already seen the evidence. The same goes for any other specialist in the field of molecular biology. Additionally, every working day my laboratory work depends on DNA being made up, not of amino acids, but nucleotides. If this is not correct then I wouldn't get either positive or negatve results - I would just have a bunch of experiments that didn't actually work, including the controls which are included to ensure that there isn't a problem with the methodology.
I really do urge you to have a look at the evidence and come to your own decision with regards to amino acids versus nucleotides. It is only by doing this that you will understand why jar and many others can say with confidence that certain strongly held beliefs can be utterly false.
Here are some links for you to have a look through
http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/01880/dna.htm
404: Content Not Found | The Tech Interactive
http://www.genome.gov/25520880
http://wikigenetics.org/...DNA_Structure_and_Gene_Expression
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/..._a_genome/Chp1_4_2.shtml
Typing "What is DNA made of" resulted in about 2580 hits. A search for DNA structure turned up 280 000.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by pelican, posted 01-24-2008 6:27 PM pelican has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 309 of 318 (451373)
01-27-2008 1:49 PM


Summation
I made very few posts in this thread, but I felt they were pertinent. They have not been replied to. By definition, these points remain unrefuted.
Additionally I feel a bit like a prophet. In message 155 I posted
I've lost count of the number of times that certain posters have announced that evolution is "just a theory and not a Law." They do not know and will not accept that, in science, the word "theory" is used differently from the way it is used in non-scientific communication.
In post 296 the following statement is made
Are you saying that E=MC2 has actually been tried and tested? If it has it would not be a theory.
No wonder claims are made that scientists can't communicate with non-scientists. The non-scientist here is totally ignoring inconvenient evidence. It's as if I never said anything. Sadly for his position, he has managed to demonstrate my point more effectively that I ever could.
In attempting to show that the opening post was wrong, they have more than adequately demonstrated that the opening post is an accurate observation.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024