Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,130 Year: 5,387/9,624 Month: 412/323 Week: 52/204 Day: 28/24 Hour: 0/5


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 33 of 415 (661638)
05-08-2012 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
05-04-2012 3:13 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Well, where are they? Even the creationists who we've got have most recently been wrong about economics. You have to go down eleven threads on "All Topics" to find anything about the EvC debate, in which, I note, creationists are not participating.
One of the reasons I very rarely post is that even when the "anti-creationists" must admit that one of their pillars of evolution are not sound they respond with silly childist barbs. An example, when discussing mutations that are not random with regards to fitness such as the CRISPRSs system the replys are you don't know what your talking about. Well my question is: is the CRISPRS system an example of a dedicated non random, beneficial change that evolutionary theorists have excluded to this day?
If so how can one have a debate when a valid point is ignored by the so called scientific experts, because it does not fit into their theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-04-2012 3:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2012 7:28 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2012 10:31 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 05-10-2012 5:44 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 59 of 415 (661818)
05-10-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
05-09-2012 7:28 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
I will content myself with the following observation --- that the one and only, sole, singular reason that you know about this system is that "the so called scientific experts" discovered it. Was it discovered by creationists in their secret creationist laboratories? It was not. It was discovered by the very same "so called scientific experts" whom you now say have "ignored" their own discovery
I agree that scientists have discovered they system. Shapiro writes about it in his book. The problem I have is many scientists on this board ignore the facts of the system and merely state all mutations for fitness are random. So why debate with logic like that? I must say that Wounded King is one of the few scientists on this board who will acknowledge that there may "possibly" be some non-random mutations for fitness, and he will also correct others on this board who have the science wrong. But he one of the few.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2012 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 05-10-2012 5:47 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 60 of 415 (661819)
05-10-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Wounded King
05-09-2012 10:31 AM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Wounded King writes:
Secondly as we discussed previously there is substantial doubt that the system is non-random in any meaningful way. There is evidence supporting the theory that the spacer sequences are taken randomly apart from a small motif bias. The only way in which it is non-random is in the incorporation into the CRISPR locus, but that is an aspect of the CRISPR mechanism.
This is an example of the kind of discussion I believe is necessary from the more "radical evolutionists" on this board. You are not denying the system may be non-random. Almost all on this board would and have.
Wounded King writes:
How can we have a debate when as a response all you do is post huge chunks of quote from other people instead of making a reasoned argument yourself? If you really want to debate CRISPRs I'm game, either in a new topic or in a great debate, but I want to debate with you not with a giant wall of text taken from various different papers, e.g. Message 735. Citations are supposed to support your argument not be your argument.
I am not a scientist so I have to rely on papers etc to support my contentions. If your logic. that one must know the science as a trained scientist before expressing support for his or her postion, then there is no room for debate by a layperson. For example when I brought to jury trial a medical malpractice case I had to rely on my experts explanation of what was wrong with the medical treatment and present that to the jury in the testimony of my experts and then in closing argument explain that to the jury. That is what I try to do on this board. But it gets quite annoying when all you get is silly combacks and not argument.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2012 10:31 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by xongsmith, posted 05-10-2012 3:34 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 88 by DWIII, posted 05-12-2012 2:25 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 89 by Granny Magda, posted 05-12-2012 7:05 AM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 70 of 415 (661993)
05-11-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
05-09-2012 8:01 AM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
Dr Adequate writes:
If you take him seriously, then please state in your own words what point he wishes to make about "the CRISPRSs system".
The thread is about why the "creationist" are not posting in the Evolution threads.
My point is that when I post good science such as the CRISPIRSs being non-random for fitness most evolutionists on this board deny that fact and then ridicule and attack me.
Why should we post when there is no acknowledgement of a good scientific point?
I do want to say that Taz and Wounded King and a few others will acknowledge good scientific points, but they are in the minority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2012 8:01 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by shadow71, posted 05-11-2012 4:42 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 76 of 415 (662023)
05-11-2012 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by shadow71
05-11-2012 2:02 PM


Re: Who Takes Who Seriously
shadow71 writes:
I do want to say that Taz and Wounded King and a few others will acknowledge good scientific points, but they are in the minority.
I meant TAQ not Taz. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by shadow71, posted 05-11-2012 2:02 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 101 of 415 (662118)
05-12-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Granny Magda
05-12-2012 7:05 AM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Granny Magda writes:
If you understand the subject then fine, go ahead and talk about it. If you understand what the scientists are saying, then go ahead and quote them. But the reality is that you don't understand the topics you bring up. Then you try to debate them with people who do understand those topics. This is a waste of time.
When I posted about James A. Shapiro's theory of Natural Genetic Engineering and gave my view of his theory I was told I did not unerstand his theory. Subsequently I discussed this with Shapiro and he told me I had a good understanding of his theory. I posted his reply to me on this board (with his permission) and I was again told by many on the board I had no idea what Shapiro was talking about.
How can I rely to something like that?
That's why I have stopped posting in the evolution threads.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Granny Magda, posted 05-12-2012 7:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Granny Magda, posted 05-12-2012 6:01 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2012 7:44 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 102 of 415 (662119)
05-12-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by DWIII
05-12-2012 2:25 AM


Re: CRISPRs redux
DWIII writes:
How sad for you, since juries seldom argue back.
Juries always argue back and always have the last word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by DWIII, posted 05-12-2012 2:25 AM DWIII has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 134 of 415 (662328)
05-14-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Granny Magda
05-12-2012 6:01 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Granny Magda writes:
Whether or not you understand Shapiro is irrelevant to your understanding of CRISPR.
You miss my point. It is not about CRISPR it is that when I make a valid point such as in re Shapiro's writings and theory I am told I don't understand it, by people who have never read Shapiro.
Shapiro says I understand it, but the "scientists" on this board, most of whom have never read Shapiro say I don't understand.
Whats the point?
If one is set in their beliefs they will not accept any other opinions.
That is what they accuse "Creationists" of doing, yet they do not realize that is what they are doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Granny Magda, posted 05-12-2012 6:01 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 05-14-2012 8:18 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 05-14-2012 9:52 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 143 by Granny Magda, posted 05-15-2012 10:53 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 144 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:39 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 149 of 415 (662432)
05-15-2012 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by nwr
05-14-2012 8:18 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
nwr writes:
I'm not sure where that leaves you with your view of Shapiro's ideas.
thank you for your excellent post.
I have never claimed that Shapiro was a denier of evolution.
I am of the opinion that he is a an evolutionist whose theory is one of intelligent, organized response to nature and the enviroment. He is not one who agrees with Darwin's or the MS's position that all changes, ie. mutations, et. al are random w/o reagard to fitness.
I don't believe he is and ID proponent, but is one who is comfortable in his theory, and does not see the need for the vitrolic Darwinism-Id debate.
I am of the opinion that Shapiro's theory is consistent with a continuing creation, that in my opinion, based upon scientific findings, leads to something other than complete randomness.
In re Larry Moran, I am of the opinon he has a secular naturalism bias.
I thank you for your measured intelligent response and opinions. This is the type of debate I anticipated when I entered this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 05-14-2012 8:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nwr, posted 05-15-2012 11:55 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 150 of 415 (662433)
05-15-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
05-14-2012 9:52 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Percy writes:
Cells are not intelligent, nor do they guide their own evolution. Shapiro has chosen this manner of description as a means of gaining himself attention. He certainly has yours. But within the general biological community Shapiro has won few converts. No consensus is building around his ideas.
Do you base those opinons on your discussions with Shapiro?
I have read several critiques of his book and he is well regarded as are his theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 05-14-2012 9:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-15-2012 9:45 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 162 of 415 (662671)
05-17-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
05-15-2012 9:45 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Percy writes:
If you're going to weigh opinions instead of evidence, then the weight of opinion is vastly against Shapiro.
I don't disagree with your comment. However you very rarely see Shapiro disparaged for his science. His opinions and choice of words seems to upset most critics.
Perhaps he is ahead of his time.
I guess the future will hold the answer to whether he is correct or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-15-2012 9:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2012 1:42 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-18-2012 6:53 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 165 by Granny Magda, posted 05-18-2012 7:23 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 05-18-2012 3:45 PM shadow71 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