All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

quote:

---

Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists.

---

My gradfather's evolution was not doctored by me in any way.
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
I was able to see reptiles and amphibians in the same communal space/time in ways that he could NOT see fish&birds. This implied that that -worm--IF EVOLUTION-amphibian-warmblood- then my view of motHER EaRtH's HERps fORmly subscribe.I wondered IF THE FORM of this remained for long Earth years, if the energy to maintain said could be extractable.
EvC Forum: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
I now see how technology might be adapted economically to accomplish this.No, I was not indoctrinated. The thought was rational. GG'd lipids and snake extrement may have more in common than the repulsive nature oof the molecules involved in the smell of my posts.

One has to seperate an "analytic demonstrability" from a demonstration.I was not interested in creationism, creation science or ID but simply GIVEN (if true or not) "millions of years" then how could energy be extracted from form but in retrospect icr creos developed in the 70s FROM a poor evo attitude of the 60s which essentially relied on fly spittle. During that time Provine was getting the maths wrong from Wright. Gladyshev was recieving witness in Great Britian and I was still thinking about how herp shape might translate into energy differences via a thought I made at Hunterdon Central High School (after I attended TH Torrence at Princeton Theological Seminary discuss LIGHT, EINSTEIN and Science&Religion).In the 80s after the debacle at Cornell with reference to how math and biology IS STILL BEING done at oxFORd I began to READ to mainly ICR material and CONcluded that indeed until a transitional form energy conversion mechanism was blueprinted and published, creationists continued to have a point that evolutionists *of any stripe* needed to heed. The CE lit since is mainly about evos apologizing for not needing to do this (by simple extension of prior evos' literature etc) and creos slightly changing the talking points to match political reality to any other insights not being proctored in the secular educational moves ment to educate the youth etc etc etc. The lite dawned on chemcially informed Russian biologists about things not Lysenko and it was short order for me to see how there might be a 'readable' extension of the genetic code that operates to explain that transitional forms need not be tendered as was being scientifically gain said despite the the protests of creationsists stongly and correctly on the offense. The biological defence still had a Haekalian underbelly. That is no more for the synthetic biologist able to follow at leat what Ben has here on EvC!!It seems that energy conversion formally could be ocurring in loose connective tissue and is maintained embyronically by yolk liprotein as the linear chromosomal information is tranlsated into functional groups by carbon side chain extensions of the DIFFERENTLY AVAILABLE 1-D symmetries of polymers of any zebra"". This remands a discontinuous biological time which I have yet to justify the praxis and thus such clear usefulness but the point is not if this has any relative frequency in the real world but rather only that it can be thought and thus is not opinion at a heart of the difference of e/c --(i dont sean how iano will simply correctly chalk this down to nationally taught diffs)--. There can always be the question of understanding me but this much I can clear up with any other post.Yes I wear glasses but this is not personal opinion. Instead indeed it involves not innuendo or any such doctoring but rather a disciplined comparative reading of texts only. I feel that both creation and science are uplifted in the systematic application during processesing the process of such. All philosophy aside, I can not say that I MUST have reached to this writing simply if there were NO CREATION and biology was all there was instead. That, was opinion but also not indoctrination. It might have been of such a community IF I had completed a bacculareate at CORNELL and went to ICR but instead I used the internet and the time away from the ordinary life most others lead a family through.

from i's OP

quote:

---

The mechanism by which EI works is lifelong and repeated exposure to statements which say or imply that Evolution is true.

---

This is not how I came to even be EXPOSED to any truth or implication of evolution. My brother and I (one year apart) were voracious readers of popular science in the 70s. One day my brother, on his own, decided to become a physicist. Out of sibling rivalry AT WORST I thought about his carrer decision being made before most people even figured out they had hormones and certainly before MOST freshman find out they have not declared a major and decided that that was a misguided thought as he was destined to study dead things like bark and how water flowed through pipes. Our grandfather was a naturalist and was constantly introducing us to information about kinds of plants and animals. He was the "expert" on nature in the western frontier of New York. I thought that wanted to be involved in something in the future that involved life (and the kids' question of WHY???? (what is the meaning of life) AND I KNEW THAT BOTH OF US KIDS were getting information passed to us from Western NY that we were not receiving from anywhere in NJ where we lived nor from any influence from our Father who worked in NYC so soon after Greg decided I decided too to become a biologist. I only chose to become an evolutionist on entrance to College at the same time that Zimmer decided to STUDY ENGLISH at Yale. THE ONLY STATEMENT THAT I WAS REPEATEDLY EXPOSED TO WAS "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" but the EFFECT of such repeition caused me a priori or such to reverse the predication and THINK phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny but that was in the general context of truth in natural history. Just because I had thought that and I was able to see behavior in herps that my granddad did not have on this "repetative" pedagogic did not mean that this thread opens with the correct environment of the debate.

quote:

---

that only other experts in the field can truly comprehend every critical piece of minutae when deciding whether to accept or reject a particular morsel presented, as Science.

---

As I got to Cornell I decided to become an EVOLUTIONIST. I did not know if this meant majoring in Genetics and Development, Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, Neurobiology and Behavior, or the Philosophy of Biology so instead in my Sophomore Year (83-84) I wrote a College Scholar Application on studying "downward causation" which I had thought was the best way to try understand all translation in space and form-making. I will try to go into this phase in response to the hang man bat later but what could have been found is that the evolutionnists DO NOT CONSIDER EVERY BIT OF MINUATAE when addressing biology relevant to evolution. One biologists told me he cared NOT for the theory but just wanted to look at birds. An adept mathmatician told me he would not do any modeling that was too philosophical. And Will Provine was hung up on free will not free energy. Besides that the Brits were saying they could ALREADY SEE what it was that evolution IS doing to do (going to do etc). Repeated exposure to THIS *might* result in following the wrong pide piper but it was not what I reposed in. I was merely interested in sorting out the data on the distribution of herps I collected in Central Jersey as a teen ager AND figure out THAT might be used to assist in the idea I was gestating over over extracting energy from organic shapes so as to help solve the domestic energy issues in the US possibly (if millions of years were true). Biology is still in a mess relative to physics and that had not cleared up by then as witness the different vision of the minutae that Croizat documented from the 50s-70s that WERE NOT EVEN BEING REPRESENTED AT COLLEGE in the 80s as the posture of creationism hardened. Learning about the changes in gene frequencies only splits Mayr's version of Gould structure but it does not mean that EVOLUTION IS TRUE. What is at issue is indeterminate and never resolveable variation. That is not however able to cognize mechanisms that might operate translation and space and form-making differently so it can not respond to what I was exposed to repeatedly any way - "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" any way.Just because I can rerepresent this does not mean that I have once and for all capped the discussion because unless the issue of transitional forms IS resolved then it is all fact veses group selection. That is HOW it was that I came to find Gladyshev's thermostatics attractive. Creationists WERE correct to REASON from thermodynamics to a TRANSITIONAL ENERGY CONVERSION but evos hedging conservatism against chromosomal integity to serve and admin sopenea on creos BY IGNORINIG EVOLUTIONARY DOCUMENTATION (as re-revelaed was being ignored in ENGLISH prosecuted writely against AMNH AND THE BRITISH MUSEUM versions IN NEW ZEALAND lberally sacraficed to IT based perspectives the analytic demonstrability of its first watermark. The kicker is of most likely that there is NO transitional form (or bone articulation in between) but the transit from the free energy of the transit to cross level effect TO the equilibrium affected therethrough. But instead, evos most technically in the sense intended by the original poster (as best I can guess) was on NONEQUILBRIUM CONIDTIONING which is NOT what the paper trail can even sign off on.All I know is that I HAVE NOT BEEN INDOCTRINATED but evolution in the popular sense of any willy nilly change is only a fact for those on the defense who feel that have something to loose. The full sythesis of this analysis remains for those able to use what I have provided on-line.

quote:

---

that evolution was not first and foremost science

---

Yeah, but that kinda depends on about what decade you intend terms here "first and foremost" to predicate or interdict.I consider rejection of German set theory and acceptance of Haekel's ART as the same problem. Frege thought Cantor simply mistaken to think that any number of times around a painting and a music score might be equipollent. The critique of judgements about the sublime were subsumed in the this Germany which Mayr has attempted to distance our WWII sensibility from but I dont think successfully as to the maths that he ALSO rejects IN THE SAME TIME(frame) but if you meant first and foremost in Faraday's early years and refer to the "chain of being" things get quite a bit harder to even look like what you said is correct. Gould, one of the best historians of evolution if nothing else (empirical truth of pe etc) has not had an extripator of his wordings, as of yet, and yet I dont know about where you intend this foreground to date range wise.Could you indicate a half century please?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-30-2005 05:32 PM