Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 132 of 402 (474087)
07-05-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Beretta
07-05-2008 8:24 AM


Beretta writes:
quote:
Seeing all this stunning complexity, evolutionists didn't want to hear about the improbability of it occurring by chance because they already knew instinctively that evolution did in fact do it (like the inverse of goddidit)and that it did all happen by chance and, of course, an enormous amount of time(that magical ingredient which improved chance's chances of getting it right.)Knowing this as fact and all agreeing that this was so, evolutionists shrugged off the probability calculations as 'unconvincing','unscientific'and 'just not cricket'.
Except, of course, none of this is true. We have an actual mechanism for how evolution works. We can even test it both in the lab and in the field.
"Instinctively"? Oh, that's fine for getting a question asked, but it's lousy for actually answering it. That's why you have to provide data, show your work, and have it looked over by peers who will chew all your work to pieces if you don't dot every i and cross every t.
How can we know that your characterization is false? Simple: You say, "It all happened by chance." That isn't what evolution states. You seem to have forgotten about selection which is not chance. Even mutation, which necessarily has a factor of randomness, isn't completely random since you can only mutate what you already have.
And you seem to be upset that there has been a lot of time. Is there a particular reason why our description of how life got to be the way it is shouldn't be in agreement with the amount of time there has been for it to get that way?
The "probability calculations" you seem to be championing are naive at best. A trivial example shows their fault:
Suppose you have a standard deck of 52 cards. You draw one.
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of having drawn an Ace?
What is the probability of having drawn a Spade?
What is the probability of having drawn a black card?
What is the probability of having drawn a card?
The "probability calculations" you seem to be champtioning conflate the probability of the first and last. They are not the same. It is inappropriate to calculate the probability of a specific answer when there are many possible answers. That's why there are so many variations of cytochrome C across species, for example.
And now for the flip side:
Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards and one has been drawn.
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What if it has already been established that the card is not a Heart?
What if it has already been established that the card is black?
What if it has already been established that the card is a Spade?
The "probability calculations" you seem to be championing conflate the probability of getting something all in one step with the probability of getting it in steps.
The reason they are declared "unconvincing," "unscientific," etc. is because that is precisely what they are.
quote:
Which is better than the 'very complex but we know that evolution did it'
When we can watch the evolution happening right in front of our eyes, how is "goddidt" better?
quote:
or 'has the appearance of design but that can't be because we know that evolution did it.'
Since we have watched the evolution happen right in front of our eyes, what is the problem with saying that we know evolution did it?
quote:
Or if evolution could provide a testable mechanism for major evolutionary change
What part of "mutation and selection" is insufficient? Be specific. Since we have watched those two things result in the creation of new species right in front of our eyes, what about it is incapable of creating major evolutionary change?
I guess this begs the question of what you mean by "major evolutionary change." Surely you're not about to trot out the "microevolution"/"macroevolution" false distinction, are you?
quote:
then there would be no need for this debate and we could all go home.
Funny how all the scientists have already gone to the pub, gone home, got a good night's sleep, and are back in the lab finding even more evidence you seem to be stating doesn't exist.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Beretta, posted 07-05-2008 8:24 AM Beretta has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 135 of 402 (474094)
07-05-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:17 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
Stupid me I thought Nuclear Plants were run by Nuclear Scientist.
I guess we need to clarify what you mean by "nuclear scientist."
Nuclear power plants are run mostly by technicians. From what I recall during my tour of the nuclear plant in Los Alamos, "nuclear scientists" are the ones that developed the theoretical framework by which a nuclear power plant could be made in the first place. They then work with engineers to develop the reactor. Once the reactor is built, it falls to the techs to actually run it.
quote:
I thought the engineers just built and carried out the requests and plans of the Nuclear Scientist.
Yes and no. Nobody here is saying that you can be a complete novice with regard to nuclear physics. But there is a difference between building the plant and running it. You don't need to be an automotive engineer in order to drive a car. The more you know about it, the better you can maintain a car, yes, but even then there comes a point where the functioning of the car has nothing to do with the creation of it. The fluid dynamics experience necessary to create a good airflow is not going to help you actually steer the car through the wind.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:17 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 12:33 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 139 of 402 (474105)
07-05-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ICANT
07-05-2008 10:59 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
Since nuclear power is one of the most devastating powers man has tried to harness I hope somebody knows what they are doing.
Indeed. Which means you don't want a nuclear scientist actually running the plant. Who would you rather have driving your high-performance racecar? An automotive engineer or a racecar driver? They're different sets of skills. Building a plant is not the same thing as running it.
quote:
I truly hope there are scientist that have looked at all the problems with TMI and Chernobyl and fixed all the problems for the future plants.
Right, because there is such a thing as "perfect."
Of course the scientists have looked at what happened with various failures at nuclear powerplants. In the case of Chernobyl, a great deal of it had to do with the actual running of the plant. A series of mistakes regarding the actual process of running a nuclear power plant led to the catastrophic failure. That wasn't the only issue, but that was the main process.
quote:
When the statement evolution has been tried tested and reproduced is made over and over does not make it 100% true.
Of course not. Like all things in science, evolution is the result of the observational process and as such, it is never declared to be so with 100% knowledge. We might have it 100% right, but we'll never know for sure because we can only make observations and it is impossible to observe everything.
quote:
There are things that have not been observed, tested or reproduced but is accepted as a fact.
Incorrect. If you haven't observed it, it isn't a fact.
Don't tell me you're about to say that because we weren't there to observe the evolution of life from the first organisms to the present, that means we cannot state that evolution is a fact, are you? Indeed, we weren't there.
But the organisms that left the fossils were. By observing the fossils, we observe what happened in the past. That is what allows us to say that life evolved.
But at any rate, you seem to be upset that science allows for the correction of mistakes. If everything has already been observed, if there is nothing more to learn, then the field dies. Why on earth continue to investigate something for which there is nothing there to discover?
But don't confuse the fact that we have more to learn about how life diversified on this planet with a claim that there is a fundamental question about the general process. There is a difference between two mathematicians arguing over whether the six-millionth digit of pi is a 2 and them arguing over whether or not pi is an integer.
quote:
No one has been around the billions of years it would take to observe a water creature become a land creature or a land creature become a water creature. Neither has it been reproduced.
(*sigh*) You are.
We don't have to have been there. The fossils were there. We can observe the fossils and achieve the same results. You seem to be saying that the only way to observe something is to do so directly.
Then by your logic, we only ever had any real proof of atoms within the past 20 years with the invention of the scanning-tunneling microscope to allow us to have pictures of atomic surfaces. Before then, there was no real evidence that atoms existed since we had never observed one.
Is there a reason why the fossil record is an insufficient observation? Be specific.
quote:
They have been claimed to have been tested, observed and reproduced.
But claiming something does not make it so.
Claiming that they haven't doesn't make it so, either. The difference is that those who claim that they have been tested, observed, and reproduced have published their results for all to see.
What do you have to justify your claim that they haven't?
You've made the exact same error that Behe did regarding "irreducible complexity." He claimed, in Darwin's Black Box, that there weren't any papers on biochemical evolution. Contrary to that claim, there were literally thousands. In fact, some of his examples in his book (the blood clot cascade, for example) had already been shown to have been evolved at the very same time he was saying nobody had ever published on them.
All he needed to do was a simple library search of the literature.
When was the last time you were in a science library doing a review of the literature?
If you can't recall, by what justification do you claim that evolutionary biology as not been "tested, observed, and reproduced"?
Edited by Rrhain, : Didn't realize that "John 10:10" was referring to a poster, not an actual quote from the Bible. Gotta read the whole thread....

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 10:59 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:39 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 150 of 402 (474126)
07-05-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ICANT
07-05-2008 12:33 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
FPL needs a NUCLEAR PSA in Juno Fl. The requirements are a Bachelor's degree in science and 12 years in Nuclear experience.
Isn't that just a bit above a technician?
No. Just what do you think a "nuclear technician" is? We're back to my original statement:
I guess we need to clarify what you mean by "nuclear scientist."
It is clear that you don't mean the same thing that we mean. As I directly stated in my original post:
Nobody here is saying that you can be a complete novice with regard to nuclear physics.
Does that sound like I think that anybody with six months training at DeVry would qualify? Of course not. But there is a difference between theory and practice. Developing a nuclear reactor is not the same as running one. While there will be common skills and background knowledge, a person trained to do one cannot be substituted for when you need the other.
quote:
I was referring to the poster John 10:10 not the Bible text.
Yes, and I immediately corrected that as soon as I saw the next post.
quote:
I did not say it was a fact. I said they were ACCEPTED as a fact. Big difference.
And even then, you're wrong. The reason why it is accepted as fact is because we can observe it.
When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. That's observation. Therefore, it is accepted.
quote:
No I am not upset that science allows for correction of mistakes.
I just don't like to be told something is 99% true and later it be proven false.
You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes? If you don't care that there is a self-correcting process in science, then you necessarily must be OK with the concept that we can be as sure as science can be about the state of the world and then throw it all out tomorrow when a new observation comes along that tells us that everything we thought we knew was wrong.
That's how science works. And when you do that, when you overthrow the dominant paradigm, they give you the Nobel Prize. That's what everybody's striving for: To find something new that completely changes the way we think about how the world works.
quote:
Why not wait until you are actually 100% sure and then claim it as a fact?
Because other than raw observation, nothing is 100% sure.
I'm reminded of one of the silly jokes I picked up as an undergrad:
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are all on a train. As it passes a field, the engineer says, "Look, there's a goat in that field!"
The physicist looks and says, "Yes, there's a white goat in that field."
The mathematician looks and says, "Yes, there is a goat in that field and the side that is facing us is white."
Do you understand the point? The only thing that we know for sure is the most limited, raw observational data. When I release a ball from my hand, it drops to the ground. Current thinking is that the reason it does so is because of gravity. Not the "invisible rubber band" hypothesis but rather an unseen force based upon the mass of the two objects exerts a pull upon them both toward each other which, due to the ball's significantly smaller mass, especially within the reference frame of the earth, makes it appear that the ball falls to the ground though the more accurate description is that they both move toward the center of gravity...it's just that the center of gravity is so close to the surface of the earth that you'd never notice without the most sensitive of equipment.
Now, suppose that tomorrow we develop a new mechanism for observing fields and it turns out that there is, indeed, what could reasonably be called "invisible rubber bands." That would completely change everything we thought we knew about how gravity worked.
But you know what doesn't change? When I release a ball from my hand, it drops to the ground. None of our observations change. It still falls at a rate proportional to the mass of the two objects and the square of the distance between them. Removing the air from the scenario still means we don't get any terminal velocity. All of that remains the same.
New observations do not change old ones. They cannot. If we suddenly realize that everything we thought we knew about gravity was wrong, apples do not suddenly hover in mid-air waiting for us to make up our minds about how they're supposed to fall. Our new understanding is incapable of warping time and space and making all previous observations change to fit the new paradigm. The new theory must explain everything we saw before.
When kinematics progressed from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian, it had to account for the observations that led to the previous theories. As Aristotle observed, objects in motion come to rest. Every single observation of an object in motion on the earth showed that it came to rest. So where did Newton get off saying that no, objects in motion remain in motion?
Simple: Newton introduced the idea of inertia and friction and all those forces that act upon an object that bleed it of its motion and eventually cause it to come to rest. Objects in motion remain in motion until acted on by an outside force.
Well, that's fine and dandy, so what's up with this Einsteinian notion of "relativity"? Every observation showed that velocity was linear. Where did Einstein get off saying that no, nothing can move faster than the speed of light?
Simple: Our measuring devices were not sensitive enough. Newtonian physics, in the reduced form such as "F = ma" is wrong at every level, every speed, always. However, at the speeds you'd see in everyday life using the measuring tools available in the 18th century, you'd never be able to detect the discrepancy between the actual velocity and predicted velocity assuming a linear kinematics. Force is not equal to mass times acceleration. Instead, you have to go back to what Newton first calculated:
F = dp/dt
Force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time. And the solution to that derivative is not linear.
Do you see? All the new developments have to be able to account for all the observations that were made before. That's the point I'm trying to make when I say that as an observational process, science can never be certain. Our understanding of gravity may be spot on, 100% correct...but we'll never know because there is always the possibility that we'll observe something new that will change everything. It is impossible to observe everything.
quote:
I will quote you, "Right, because there is such a thing as "perfect." Why can I not expect things to be that way?
Because no physical process is perfect. Science is the study of physical processes. That study is observational in nature which is also a physical process. Because no physical process is perfect, science can never state something with 100% certainty...even if you have it 100% correct.
You'll never know.
quote:
Rrhain there is only one complete fossil record of any length of time that I know of.
And when was the last time you were in a science library doing a review of the literature to make sure you were up to date on the state of the science?
Have you considered the possibility that the reason you don't know of any others is because you haven't done your homework? Nobody is an expert on everything. Are you seriously trying to claim to have a profound working knowlege about the entire field of paleobiology?
quote:
During which time 330 different speciation events occurred. At the end of the 66 million year perfect record of foraminifera they were still foraminifera.
Why is that a problem? And by the way, you just contradicted yourself. If there were speciation events, then you don't have the same thing as what you started with.
Do you understand the cladistics involved? Foraminifera is higher up the taxonomy than the species level. They're a phylum. You seem to be upset that they didn't create a new kingdom in the process. Why do I get the feeling that if they had, you'd be complaining that they didn't develop a new domain.
Exactly what is it about a speciation event that is insufficient? You seem to be about to say something about "kinds." What exactly are you expecting?
Be specific.
quote:
Just a few moments ago when I made sure of the foraminifera data.
So you wrote your post from the library? An internet search is insufficient, ICANT. You need to actually leave the computer behind and go to the stacks, pull down the books and journals, and read them.
I posted my message at 8:42 AM, PDT. You responded at 9:33 AM, PDT. I seriously doubt you were capable of doing anything approaching a thorough survey of the literature in just under an hour.
quote:
Rrhain do you ever read a thread before you start posting.
Yes, I do. If you notice, I corrected my post in less than five minutes. I read your post and the preceding one, but apparently I didn't go back far enough. NosyNed's comments made me realize that I didn't do as thorough a survey of the thread as I should have.
Have you learned something from this lesson? Do you really think you did a thorough survey of the literature regarding paleobiology in under an hour? Using only the internet?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 12:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 8:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 151 of 402 (474127)
07-05-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 1:19 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
Show us the laboratory where the evolutionary model has been shown to be true from start to finish.
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
So there you go. The evolutionary model from start to finish. Right in front of your eyes using materials and techniques sufficiently simple enough for a 10th-grader to do.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 1:19 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:15 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 402 (474240)
07-07-2008 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 7:39 PM


John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Of course not. Like all things in science, evolution is the result of the observational process and as such, it is never declared to be so with 100% knowledge. We might have it 100% right, but we'll never know for sure because we can only make observations and it is impossible to observe everything.
Exactly! In fact evolution is not really science at all.
Congratulations! You just did away with your own self. The only evidence you have for yourself is your observations. But, you cannot observe everything about you.
Therefore, by your own logic, you cannot be examined and thus, you don't exist.
Is that really what you want to say?
quote:
It's basically a theory about how life began
Oy...where to begin? We'll start backwards:
Evolution has nothing at all to say about how life began. Evolution is compatible with every single method of genesis you care to name. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, anything you can imagine, evolution doesn't care.
So long as life does not reproduce perfectly from one generation to the next, evolution is satisfied. Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves?
Evolution is not about the origin of life. It's about what happens to life after it originates. The quarter in your pocket that you're about to use in the vending machine: Does the vending machine really care if it was made at the Philadelphia mint as opposed to the Denver mint? Surely you're not saying that the vending machine cares where the quarter came from, are you?
If not, then why do you seem to think that evolution cares where life came from?
Second, you toss out "theory" as if that were a bad thing. Of course evolution is a theory. It's also a fact. That's why we have a theory. Science develops theories to explain facts. That's why it's called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. You can't have a theory regarding evolution until you have already established evolution as a fact.
When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. Because we haven't quite figured out that telepathy thing just yet, we use language and the word (in English) that we have come to use to describe the force that pulls the ball down is "gravity."
That's a fact.
It is only through observation and experimentation that we come up with theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] gravity that says F = Gm1m2/r2. It's still tentative. We're pretty sure that we've got it right since we use that theory to do all sorts of things, but there is always the possibility that we have missed an observation (since it is impossible to observe everything) that will change it.
But no matter what our theory, gravity is still a fact: When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground.
When we observe organisms over time, they change. Because we haven't quite figured out that telepathy thing just yet, we use language and the word (in English) that we have come to use to describe the change in the morphology of the population of organisms is "evolution."
That's a fact.
It is only through observation and experimentation that we come up with the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution that says that there is a genome that describes the morphology, is imperfectly replicated in the creation of the next generation, and that this morphology is then run through various selection events that determine which individuals will be the ones who repeat the process of originating the next generation. It's still tentative. We're pretty sure that we've got it right since we use that theory to do all sorts of things, but there is always the possibility that we have missed an observation (since it is impossible to observe everything) that will chagne it.
But no matter what our theory, evolution is still a fact: When we observe organisms over time, they change.
Now, unless you're going to say that gravity "is not really science at all," you're going to have to explain why the exact same process and results that allow us to have such confidence in physics somehow are completely illegitimate with regard to biology. I should point out: Evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity because we have an actual mechanism for it: Mutation and selection. We can directly manipulate this mechanism.
We still have no idea what gravity is, where it comes from, why it even exists, or how to manipulate it. All we know is what it does.
Again, you're going to have to explain why the fundamental concept of biology doesn't live up to the standard most people put physics on when biology has exceeded what physics has ever dared to dream about.
quote:
progressed to where we are today without a Creator.
Huh? Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves?
Ooh! You're new, so you haven't heard this question yet. Maybe you can be the first person to answer it:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Science studies things that happen on their own. That doesn't mean there aren't outside agents. It simply means that science studies what happens when those outside agents aren't fiddling around. Just as science removes god from the equation, it also removes [I][B]YOU[/i][/b] from the equation. Surely nobody is saying you don't exist (well...except you are as your own logic dictates above). However, science wants to see what happens when you're not the one doing things.
If I were to take a cylinder, fill it will one mole of oxygen gas and two moles of hydrogen gas, put it in a test chamber, and then go to lunch for an hour, what should be my response when I come back and find that the gas inside has been replaced with a mole of water?
Surely it isn't that me going to lunch is what made the water replace the gas, yes? If that is a serious contender for it, we'd have to put in some controls to isolate the system from my actions, yes?
Well, isn't a possibility that my lab assistant did something? If so, that isn't really helping since we're trying to study what happens to the gas all on its own, not what happens to the gas when my lab assistant fiddles with it. He's capable of doing almost anything, thus any findings that we have aren't going to be of any use: We find we're not studying the gas but rather are studying my lab assistant.
Thus, science removes god from the equation not out of any animosity or claim that god doesn't exist but simply because the point of science is to find out what happens to things when they are left to themselves.
And that's what leads me to my question:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote:
Many evolutionists state this up front by saying they do not want there to be a Creator God like that.
First, "many" doesn't mean anything. Unless and until you come up with names and exact quotes in complete context, the only thing you're doing is trying to paint those who accept the science of evolution to be evil people who hate god. It's an appeal to emotion, not to logic.
Second, even if you do come up with such names and quotes in complete context, it doesn't matter. Again, science is about studying what happens despite interference by outside agents, not because of them. Just as god is removed from the equation, so are you. Science does not deny your existence nor does it denigrate it in any way. The fact that there may be somebody somewhere who is a scientist who does not like you is irrelevant.
The science will still be true even with that rude individual taken out of the picture.
Again: Are you saying that god cannot create life that evolves. Why does evolution necessarily preclude the existence of god?
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 7:39 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 12:37 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 198 of 402 (474241)
07-07-2008 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 8:11 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
There is a hugh amount of speculation for the theory of evolution, but no scientific evidence proven by scientific testing from start to finish for the evolutionary model.
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
So there you go. The evolutionary model from start to finish. Right in front of your eyes using materials and techniques sufficiently simple enough for a 10th-grader to do.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:11 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 199 of 402 (474242)
07-07-2008 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by John 10:10
07-05-2008 8:15 PM


John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So there you go. The evolutionary model from start to finish. Right in front of your eyes using materials and techniques sufficiently simple enough for a 10th-grader to do.
And a fully developed man pops out, right?
Logical error: Moving the goalposts.
You didn't ask for the evolutionary history of humans. You asked for "the evolutionary model from start to finish." That was what you were given. Now that you have seen that what you have been insisting doesn't exist actually does, you are changing your demand in the hopes that nobody will notice.
Of course a "fully developed man" doesn't pop out. Nobody said it would. In fact, if it did, evolutionary theory would have to be radically altered. The above experiment takes only on the order of days. Evolution of something like a human doesn't happen that fast.
If you want the evidence for the evolution of humans, you go to the fossil record because it's all there.
Fossil Hominids
Is there a reason why the fossil record is insufficient? Be specific. We can watch the evolution happen right in front of our eyes by examining the fossils. Why is this not enough for you?
Are you saying the only evidence you would possibly accept is the equivalent of a videotape of every single hominid individual showing the lifetime of them all so that we could watch the individuals evolve into modern humans?
Congratulations: You've just done away with all of forensics. Better let most of those criminals out of jail because most crimes don't have eye-witnesses. They only have forensic evidence.
Question: Do you accept the validity of a paternity test? That is, do you accept that there is a biochemical way to determine if one individual is the father of another individual?
If so, why do you suddenly claim that this method is invalid when determining evolutionary relationships? It's the exact same method. Why can I use it to tell who your father is but not who your ancestor is? Isn't your father an ancestor?
Be specific.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by John 10:10, posted 07-05-2008 8:15 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 12:50 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 200 of 402 (474244)
07-07-2008 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by ICANT
07-05-2008 8:40 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
The information of the Foraminifera has been on my computer for over a year.
Right. And your computer contains all information regarding evolutionary transitions?
Exactly how big is your computer room? Your data center must be huge.
quote:
I only checked the Archives at FSU to see if it had been updated.
Right. And you surveyed the entire field of literature in less than an hour?
Hint: The problem is not that you are mentioning Foraminifera. The problem is that you are claiming that Foraminifera is the ONLY one.
quote:
What I do know is from reading paper's by Hawking, Turok, Brandenberger, Carroll, Trodden, Kamionkowski, Liddle, Wiltshire, Kosowsky, Turner, Arnold, and Parker just to name a few.
But do you understand it? The last time you and I had a discussion regarding Hawking and Turok, I had to quote your own source to you regarding what it said.
quote:
What would it actually take for an apple to either stay where you put it in the air or fall upward on earth?
You mean to have sufficient counteracting force against gravity? There are lots of things. I admit I am playing a bit dumb. Methinks you are trying to engage in a game of gotcha and I want to know what you're really asking.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 8:40 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 11:56 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 247 of 402 (474331)
07-07-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by mike the wiz
07-07-2008 9:25 AM


mike the wiz writes:
quote:
logic out-strips science.
Science is predicated on logic. That's the entire point.
quote:
Logically, the facts indicate nothing but the facts.
...
Creationism isn't ignorance, it's just an alternative explanation for those who genuinely believe that history happened according to how the Holy Bible said it did.
So what do you do when the former contradicts the latter? The Bible says that flowering plants came before insects. The facts indicate otherwise.
Why would you have us discard the fact in favor of the "interpretation"?
quote:
You then question Christ himself - and how his miracles could have been naturally explained. Where does it end?
Who knows? But we're back to yet another question that never seems to get answered:
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?
See, you're starting with your conclusion that the Bible is accurate and then try to find evidence that justifies it, all the while denying anything that doesn't fit with your preconception. If you wish to do science, you must be willing to say that everything you thought you knew about everything is wrong.
quote:
As far as I can see, evolution is an explanation which powerfully favours naturalistic origins and the removal of God.
That's the point. We're back to the question that never gets answered:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Of course science removes god. Science removes [I][B]YOU[/i][/b]. That doesn't mean you don't exist. It simply means that science is studying things that happen without your influence. It studies things that happen on their own.
Why is this a problem? If the facts tell us that there are things that happen on their own, then why on earth would we reject that in favor of a preconception?
Unless you're saying that there isn't anything that happens on its own and everything requires god. Are you?
quote:
To me, I have not been shown how evolution certainly happened, logically. Because logically, it is no proven in it's entirety.
What are you missing? We can see evolution happen right in front of our eyes both in small scale and large scale. The fossil record clearly indicates evolution happened on even larger scales.
So what, specifically, are you missing?
quote:
Listen - new developments abound because yu already ASSUME evolution happened! Now pretend that evolution didn't happen - and THEN look at that development.
Huh? The reason why we "assume" evolution happened is because we observed it happening. We can see it happen right before our eyes. The fossil record shows that it's been happening for as long as life has been around. Since we can directly observe it happening, there is no question that it happened. Evolution is a fact.
That's why we have developed a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. The question is not "if" evolution happened. We know that it has. The question is "how."
The experiment that I keep repeating here regarding E. coli and T4 phage simply shows evolution happening. It does not describe how.
quote:
that will not change that evolution is just a theory, unproven, which might be replaced by another theory
You act like that's a bad thing.
Are you gonna jump off the Empire State Building because gravity is "just a theory"? Are you gonna worry about the sun not shining because electromagnetism is "just a theory"? Are you gonna stop taking medication because germs causing disease are "just a theory"?
You don't seem to understand how theories work. Take the development of kinematics. In the beginning, there was Aristotle and things at rest tended to remain at rest and things in motion tended to come to rest.
So when Newton came along and developed the concept of inertia such that things in motion tended to remain in motion, it had to explain the fact that here on earth, things in motion tend to come to rest. The observations do not change. Apples did not suddenly remain suspended in mid-air waiting for us to make up our minds.
Instead, Newtonian physics must explain the motion we already observed: The reason things come to rest here on earth is because of friction. Things in motion remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Friction is such a force that changes the motion of object.
So when Einstein came along and developed the concept of relativity such that velocity is not linear, it had to explain the fact that here on earth, it sure looks like they are. The observations do not change. A falling apple falls at the same acceleration.
Instead, Einsteinian physics must explain the motion we already observed: The reason things seem to accelerate at the same speed here on earth is because our instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the difference. Newtonian physics is wrong at every level and every speed, but for the most common interactions we have, the error term is so small that you'd have to have millions of dollars of equipment to ever notice.
Apples still fall from trees, though.
Evolution is the same way. When we observe populations of organisms over time, they change. We call this change "evolution" just as we call the force that pulls apples down "gravity." It's just a word to describe what it is that we see. The question is how this evolution works.
quote:
Meanwhile, I am not convinced the brilliance of creation came about by itself - and logically it is STILL upon you to prove the extraordinary claim that all this brilliant creation was infact evolution.
Huh? What does evolution have to do with origins? We've been through this before. Evolution is consistent with every method of origins you care to name. Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?
Who are you to tell god what he did? Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2008 9:25 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 249 of 402 (474334)
07-07-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by LucyTheApe
07-07-2008 10:31 AM


LucyTheApe writes:
quote:
This video is premised on a random chemical process. Which, of course is a false premise.
ERV's are not "random" as such. They are the acts of viruses inserting themselves into the genome. Are you saying that this does not actually happen?
Even though we've seen it happen?
quote:
Did you not learn at school that the concept of randomness exists only in the human mind, not in nature.
No.
What I learned in school was that randomness is the very nature of existence. On the physical level, it's called "quantum mechanics."
quote:
If this is the strongest case for evolution, then the theory really is on shaky grounds.
On the contrary, it is the reason why it is pretty much the most solid theory science has. Evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity.
We still don't know what gravity is, where it comes from, or why it even exists. All of those things are known for evolution.
So if evolution is "on shaky grounds" and yet evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity, then that must mean you have no qualms about jumping off a cliff.
Time to put your money where your mouth is.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-07-2008 10:31 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 252 of 402 (474337)
07-07-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by LucyTheApe
07-07-2008 11:14 AM


LucyTheApe writes:
quote:
Speciation is evolution is speciation; circular reasoning!
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to make speciation happen. Evolution is just one of them. That speciation happens is not sufficient to justify evolution. Instead, the specific process by which speciation happens (over time, reproductive isolation, mutation events, differential selection) is what justifies evolution.
quote:
If speciation is not evolution then you have two theories in the one sentence.
Incorrect. Speciation is a fact. Evolution is what explains the fact.
quote:
What we see with the Ecoli is inbuilt adaption not evolution.
Incorrect. Did you not read the description? It cannot be adaptation because if it were, then the entire lawn would behave identically. They are all descended from a single ancestor. Therefore if there were an "adaptive" ability within the E. coli to survive T4 phage, then the entire lawn would have it.
But the entire lawn does not have it. Only some do.
Since the entire lawn is a descendant of a single ancestor, how is it that there is a morphological difference if the bacteria did not evolve?
Be specific.
quote:
If organisms were unable to adapt there would be no life left on earth.
Incorrect. Adaptation is the ability for an individual organism to change its own self to adjust to environmental changes. That doesn't help future generations because my ability to figure out how to live doesn't help my children.
Instead, evolution is the only way to achieve long-term success in a changing environment. I have to be able to pass off traits to my offspring and adaptations are not passed on to the next generation.
In most humans, going out in the sun causes an adaptation in the skin: It darkens. In response to the UV radiation in the sun, pigment is released that is capable of absorbing the radiation.
But just because you get a tan doesn't mean your children will be born with a tan. That's Lamarckian evolution and we know it to be false. Instead, evolution happens under the Darwinian model: It is not your actual tan that gets passed on but rather your ability to get a tan in the first place. Not all people have the same ability to get a tan and if getting a tan easily is more successful, then future generations will be more likely to get a tan than current generations.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-07-2008 11:14 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 254 of 402 (474340)
07-07-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by subbie
07-07-2008 4:56 PM


subbie responds to John 10:10:
quote:
quote:
We finally agree that ToE is a theory, not a fact.
I've never said it was anything other than a theory. Nor has anyone else at this site.
Incorrect. I have been saying it.
Of course, I've been saying what Stephen Jay Gould has been saying:
Evolution is both a fact [I][B]AND[/i][/b] a theory. That's why it's called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon.
When we observe populations of organisms over time, they change. We call this change "evolution" because we use language and need a word to describe what it is that we see. That is the fact of evolution.
The theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution explains how those changes happens. Changes in morphology happen through mutation and selection (Darwinian), not through the passing on of adaptations (Lamarckian).

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:56 PM subbie has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 259 of 402 (474352)
07-07-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 11:56 AM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
Theories provide the means whereby things are proven, thereby becoming facts.
That's completely backwards. You start with the facts and work your way toward a theory. The theory will then make predictions by which you discover new facts, but you must then fold those facts back into the theory.
Theories are never proven because theories are based upon observations. Since it is impossible to observe everything, we can never know with certainty if our theories are correct. They might be, but we'll never know.
quote:
Once we know the proven facts to a high degree of accuracy, they have meaning and can become useful in all manner of creative endeavours for the good of mankind.
That isn't how science works at all. Things either are a fact or they are not. Theories, on the other hand, have degrees of accuracy because they need to explain the facts.
You start with the fact and develop a theory.
That's why evolution is both a fact and a theory: You start with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then you develop the theory to explain them (they change due to mutation and selection).

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 11:56 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:57 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 262 of 402 (474356)
07-07-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by ICANT
07-07-2008 11:56 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
What would have to happen to the planet earth for an apple to stay in place when released at a point above the ground or to fly off into space? I have no idea.
You'd have a whole bunch of scientists doing everything they could to reproduce the effect and figure out how it was happening. Their experiments would give results that would generate new questions and the resulting theories generated would be folded into current theory.
After all, just because that apple stayed in the air doesn't change the fact that all the other ones fell. Our new theory is going to have to account for all the other observations we have made.
quote:
As I understand it if one of the astronauts working on the space station was to lose attachment to the station or shuttle they would fall away from them.
No, because they're both going at the same rate. We learned that from Galileo: With no air resistance, the acceleration due to gravity is equal on all objects. Because they are not in atmosphere (of any real significance), then they both are affected by the same acceleration. If you recall your kinematics, acceleration is not dependent upon mass.
It isn't like there is something pushing the astronaut away from the station. The reason why they are tethered together is because if the astronaut were to push away from the station, there would be very little to push back on to get back to the station. There certainly isn't any air friction to stop you and there isn't any other massive object to push against to get you back toward the station. You're tethered not because the universe is conspiring to have you drift away...you're tethered because you, personally, might push yourself away.
That's similar for things like performing mechanical repairs in space. The reason why they put the astronaut on the end of the arm is because there is not enough friction. If you're standing on the ground and are trying to turn a screw, the earth has enough mass to pull you toward it and that causes enough friction between your feet and the ground such that when you turn the screwdriver in your hand, you don't just rotate yourself.
In space, however, there isn't much mass in the station such that there isn't much gravitational pull between you and the station, though there is some. But what there is isn't enough to provide friction between you and what you're standing on to counteract the torque of you turning a screw. Thus, to get over it, they physically attach you to the object you're trying to work on so that you are working against the object, itself.
quote:
quote:
Right. And you surveyed the entire field of literature in less than an hour?
No.
Only the information pertaining to the Foraminifera.
Right. And you have the entire field of literature regarding Foraminifera on your computer and were able to search the entirety of it in less than an hour?
Hint: The problem is not that you are mentioning Foraminifera or even that you have your notes on it (we all have our notes). The problem is that you are claiming that you have made a complete study in less than an hour.
quote:
I made no claims.
Um, have you forgotten that your words are kept here? We can go back and look at what you said.
Message 143:
ICANT writes:
Rrhain there is only one complete fossil record of any length of time that I know of.
"Only one." That's what you said.
quote:
I don't remember mentioning anything other that foraminifera.
That's the point: You're saying that there is "only one." For that to be true, you would have had to have surveyed the entire field of paleobiology so that you could say that there is only one.
Yes, you also said, "that I know of," but let's not play dumb. You were saying "that I know of" as an indicative that there was only one to know of in the first place. Again, that would require you to have surveyed the entire field of literature to conclude that there weren't any others.
Behe made the same mistake: "Nobody has ever studied this," when at the time he made that statement, there were literally hundreds of papers on the very thing he claimed nobody had ever looked at.
quote:
At no point during that unbroken history of 66 million years did the foraminifera transmute into something other than foraminifera.
Why would it? Foraminifera is an entire phylum. Were you expecting a new kingdom to arise? Do you seriously not understand claddistics and taxonomy?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 11:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2008 9:32 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:00 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024