What I have noticed about these debates...

TS:
Emphasis added. To show the inconsistencies of your beliefs. Soooo, if you sincerely believe (NOT!!) people have "the right to live and believe as they wish," you have outed yourself as a HYPOCRITE in the highest order! Congratulations. Are you one of those feminazis?M: In addition to your extremely limited intellect it is not unexpected that you show the other fundie quality of a profound fear of women.TS:
Hopefully, you aren't one of the people brainwashing little children in public schools by telling them their parents lied to them about the Bible's creation accounts (or Koran or Torah) and "GOD didn't creat YOU, fool!M: As opposed to those who brain wash children into saying that god did this or that without any evidence? Interesting that you included the Torah and Koran..do you teach children the truths of those works as well? Do you preach the koran...and why did you exclude the Vedas? or Native American creation myths? Or Greek mythology?Let's see you propose a
hypothesis of creation that is
1)testable
2) falsifiableHint for the layperson laywer..you can't.TS:
You were created from a swirling dust ball which collapsed on itself into a molten rock where ALL life came from." Such violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a most egregious manner. The irony is that the 1st Amendment is consistent with your above stated belief.M: Well, thankfully evolution is not abiogenesis and thankfully nobody who studies abiogenesis proposes a "swirling dustball" as the origin of life. You might actually want to inform yourself on the subjects you are opposed to...otherwise your civil case will not only be a profound defeat for you personally, but a huge farce.TS:
For the record, I don't care if you believe like me, or what you believe. I assume you are an adult and can think for yourself. How about allowing others to do the same when it comes to opining on the ultimate question of life? Unless you've been hiding your evidence of abiogenesis? Perhaps following your own advice would be advisable under the circumstances...M: Can you actually show that abiogenesis is taught in school or taught in school as a fact? Evolution is covered (sometimes) but abiogenesis rarely.I guess you should sue the schools also for teaching geography and that the world is round rather than flat as you are forced to accept?TS:
Among other things, aren't you one of the many who falsely proclaim that there are valid logical principles like "the God of the gaps fallacy" and "abiogenesis is illogical to evolution"????????M: Demonstrate that the "god of the gaps" is a fallacy. If you have read Darwin (you clearly have not or you are too limited to undestand what he actually wrote) then you would not have to ask why abiogenesis and evolution are two separate topics. I take from your multitude of question marks that you are seriously confused.TS:
Because those are LIES, and no less so even if you believe them. Folks, there is NO SUCH THING as a "God of the gaps fallacy" -- it is not contained in any known existing logical paradigm. Don't believe me? How about a "peer-reviewed" resource on the logic behind "the God of the gaps fallacy"??? It doesn't exist.M: Why would there be a peer reviewed article on why the gaps argument is intellectually void? That a laywer with no background in science claim that ALL science is lying hardly bears much weight. Contrary to your personal belief, you are irrelevant to science and as a laywer you are professionally irrelevant to the search for the truth.TS:
Only a person shamelessly insecure about their own beliefs in God would make such a statement and brainwash children into believing the same. Again, you are a hypocrite and have ZERO credibility. Shame on you!M: As opposed to all the credibility you have?TS:
Finally, abiogenesis IS the logical imperative of evolution!!!!!!!M: Up the dosage of your sedative there big boy...take deep breathe and remove the finger from the exclamation point and shift key..there, feel better? Darwin did not say how life began, his theory covers how it developed subsequently. The origin of SPECIES..not the origin of life. That you cannot grasp that says more about the limitations of your intellect and logical abilities than anyone elses.TS: Believe they are irrelevant to eachother if you want, but it is YOU who are being illogical one here and have absolutely NO evidence for the foundation of your belief in evolution.M: Except all the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields. I am sure you have read all of it and base your objections on a thorough knowledge of the subject you oppose TS:
Or maybe you can give us a peer-reviewed article i've been asking for ad naseum on the "logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution"?M: Try reading the Origin of Species and figure it out yourself like most people with half a brain have been able to.TS:
Or, since one does not exist, you can be the first to take a stab at it and WE will peer review it right here!!M: Well, before "we" peer review it let's see if you have any academic credentials...let's see you demonstrate non-random mutation or genomic imprinting of the H19 locus using your profound legal knowledge. It should be easy if you are such an authority on all things scientific.TS:
Here is your chance to demonstrate your command over logic and make a fool out of anyone who doesn't believe exactly as YOU do. Hypocrite.M: Your post to schrafinator made a fool out of you already..anything further would be redundant.How disappointing TS...I thought you might bring a novel angle to creationist arguments against evolution with your legal angle. Instead, you are a below average fundie ranter who has absolutely no idea about science and especially evolutionary biology.But congratulations on being banned faster than anyone else I have seen on this board...you must be proud of your achievement.

Hi zipzip,Do you then also accept the evidence that the observed biodiversity today is a result of evolution or do you reject it as contrary to the bible? If you accept evolution I would say your view is fairly mainstream for a scientist as most are religious (believe in god/gods and accept evolution). But I am not entirely sure of your position (regarding evolution) from your post.Best wishes,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-03-2002]

Hi zipzip,Thanks for the clarification. I also do not see an intrinsic conflict between religion and evolution except where one forces a literal interpretation, not just of the bible, but of virtually any religious text. What I find interesting on this board is I have very frequently heard the claim or the implication that acceptance of evolution by default makes one an atheist. Forget that they are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. I have tried to impart the fact that most scientists are not atheists. You are an example on this board and actually most scientists I know follow some religion. This then often leads to the claim that those who claim a faith but also accept evolution are not real Christians, Muslims, etc. etc. Forget that the catholic church accepts evolution for example.ZZ:
Macroevolution appears to be a more complicated topic because nobody really understands it (that is why it is such fun for folks to argue), but the general premise that speciation occurs somewhere in the mix of microevolutionary processes and vast (and perhaps not so vast) distances of time is also reasonable. The actual tempo of speciation throughout time (as represented in the fossil record) is problematic for me in terms of making me question the actual (molecular) mechanism or set of events by which speciation occurs, however.M: I completely agree that macroevolution is more complicated and poorly understood. That is what makes molecular evolution particularly interesting. You can easily break new ground with an investigation. Tempo of evolution is particularly tricky because of the constellation of variables. I am fairly skeptical regarding molecular clocks for example since you are basically measuring the last time a population suffered a bottleneck and not necessarily a speciation event which can throw phylogenies for example, completely off.Cheers,
Mammuthus

Hi Ten-sai,
I see the 24 hour ban did you some good. While the tone of your post is relatively unchanged, you actually provide slightly more content worth debating.TS:
What is a fundie? Seriously, first time I heard the word. Is it some kind of insider insult? Because I didn’t see it in my dictionary.M: You won't find it in the dictionary. It is short for fundamentalist. It can be fundamentalist christian, islamist, etc.TS:
The response I received from Shrafinator vindicated any potential error in profiling a typical liberal American woman who indeed may have become the men they’ve always wanted to beM: What is a "typical American woman"? Why would schraf want to be a man? Are you implying she is more masculine than you? Nothing from her posts indicate a desire for masculinity nor any feeling of inferiority. If you have specific quotes from her post that specify or this or support you claims regarding her please provide them.TS:
I don’t exclude any creation belief, even your fairy tale of abiogenesis. The issue, however, is whether governmentally funded public schools and research projects should receive public funds for the brainwashing of an unfounded creation belief not within the realm of science. Religious neutrality is the key issue here. Focus on that and also on the following:M: Interesting. Moving away from the abiogenesis versus evolution argument briefly, you don't think research into origin of life should be funded? Why specifically? The project proposals go through exactly the same review as any other type of proposal. Or can you propose a scientific test for your creation belief?TS:
Abiogenesis is the logical imperative of evolution; that is, your stated creation belief derived from how science sees the early beginnings of evolution. Agreed?M: Not really agreed. Evolution occurs post-creation and is not responsible for creation. They are independent fields of inquiry. The only connection is that life had to start to then subsequently evolve. Thus, there are theistic evolutionists i.e. made the first life, self replicating molecules what have you and then it evolved naturally.TS:
By definition, abiogenesis, presently the only creation belief valid for consideration within your evolution paradigm, excludes ID.M: Nope. Plenty of people (not myself however) believe god created the first life and that it then evolved. So evolution does not exclude all creation beliefs.TS:
Moreover, your creation belief in abiogenesis excludes any other reasonable alternative (remember panspermia? Hahaha) or creationist explanation for the undisputed and most convenient abrupt appearance of life.M: Undisputed? And what is "most convenient" mean scientifically?TS:
Yes, even the creationists’ stories in the Torah, Koran, and Bible. But that’s the point. You can’t single out any of them for state support. Including your creationist belief in abiogenesis, of which you have NO EVIDENCE, direct or circumstantial.M: As I said, I do not know that abiogenesis is taught in school..and certainly not as a theory. I certainly did not study abiogenesis in school before college. My college courses only dealt with the subject in passing and it was highly tentative. There is federally supported research into the development of self replicating molecules in conditions thought to mimic early Earth conditions but they are doing no more than hypothesis testing. It is highly tentative and there is not theory of abiogenesis.TS:
Now, I understand that some are misled that abiogenesis and evolutioin are TWO SEPARATE THINGS like Mams here, AND say we don’t care if God created the first life form (b/c evolution and abiogenesis are irrelevant of course), to wit: EVOLUTION IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.M: You have not demonstrated that I am the one confused on this point.TS:
Fine. We can get busy talking about Intelligent Design then!M: Fire away. Though I will point out there is an entire forum on this board dedicated to the subject so you might want to begin any discussion there.M previous post:

quote:

---

Let's see you propose a hypothesis of creation that is
1)testable
2) falsifiable
Hint for the layperson laywer..you can't.

---

TS:
Your semantics game is tiring. What exact thought do you really wish to convey when the subject of your conclusion is an oxymoron? Moron.M: You insult aside, you were unable to address this. It is not a semantics game. It is what separates science from pseudoscience/supernatural/mythology etc. Hardly semantics. I take it though that you concede you are unable to propose a hypothesis. Don't feel bad, no creationist ever has and that is why they fail.TS:
But you unwittingly establish my point, Mams. Your abiogenesis creation myth is BUNK, oppressive, and violative of religious freedom! It is also impossible within the scientific paradigm.M: Well, at least you are now making the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution..imagine that. Progress. However, studying life origins is not impossible within a scientific paradigm. However, the conclusions will always be tentative..like with all science.TS:
First, you would never be on any jury of mine. I would pick you apart in a public voir dire and discard you as biased waste. Just like here.M: So far you have only been able to post insults...you have hardly "picked me apart". And it is clear that for you to win a case you would require a jury devoid of experts. But in any case, have fun with the civil suit TS:
As to the swirling dustball, you have some other opinion of how the solar system was created? Love to hear it Mams. What did the solar system look like before it was a solar system? How about the earth? When you say the earth was formed 4.7 billion years ago, was it molten rock or not?M: And this has what to do with the first life form(s)? With a(bio)genesis...not the formation of stars? Or is your claim now that all biological studies have to first explain stellar formation? You seem to confuse a lot of very basic fields of inquiry...not a very good way to prepare for a civil case. Hope you serve your clients better..for their sakes.TS:
How was it formed? Was it an instantaneous event? What did it look like? Er, a molten rock? Obviously where all life came from.M:Feel free to go over to the Big Bang forum...let's see what else you can confuse yourself with...TS:
Everybody knows that given enough time the flatulent properties of molten rocks will randomly ejaculate lifehappens all the timeM:
Extraterrestrial life? Who knows. Life on Earth? Had to have happened at least once.TS:
just as in the case of life on this planet, this rock of ours gave us life at the earliest possible time! Must have been just perfect conditions for life to create itself in the early stages of our rock.M: Nice comic book description of the planetary formation. However, what is "earliest possible time"? Perfect conditions? Why would they have to be perfect. They had to be merely sufficient.

quote:

---

M: Can you actually show that abiogenesis is taught in school or taught in school as a fact? Evolution is covered (sometimes) but abiogenesis rarely.
I guess you should sue the schools also for teaching geography and that the world is round rather than flat as you are forced to accept?

---

TS:
It is obvious there exists an unwittingly conspired effort to ignore the obvious. The second question you asked was just stupid. Even for you Mams. It’s sad you don’t see the issue or, perhaps more accurately, you don’t wish to discuss it.M: I do wish to discuss it..why is the second question stupid? Is it not contrary to a literal interpretation of some religious text that the world is not flat? Doesnt that discriminate against those beliefs? It seems like you have another civil suit on your plate.TS:
Sheesh, don’t you get it? YOU were the one who propagated the illogical phrase, the god of the gaps, unknown to any valid logical paradigm followed by the enlightened man. Where is the reasoning behind your conclusions? You are the one saying ‘the god of the gaps fallacy’ is NOT a fallacy, but RATHER valid logic.Well?M: Actually, YOU brought up god of the gaps so it is up to you to show that it is a fallacy. Also please list all the "valid logical paradigms followed by the enlightened man". This sounds like a babelfish translation of a swedish porn film title.TS:
The onus is upon you to establish the validity of such a phrase, THEN I will show you why it is a fallacy! So, do tell us what is so logical about the god of the gaps fallacy because it really sounds more like a thinly veiled disguise to publish your negative feelings about a belief in God while simultaneously giving two cheers for your atheist/agnostic confederates.M: You brought up the subject, you made assertions based on what you brought up..the onus is upon you to support why god of the gaps is a fallacy or concede (like with a testable hypothesis of creation) that you cannot.
As to the last sentence...I see that you have discounted the theistic evolutionists (atheist/agnostic confederates) and the RCC.TS:
Btw, this phrase wouldn’t be uttered in the classroom would it? Just like abiogenesis isn’t taught in the classroom? Because abiogenesis and evolution aren’t necessarily relevant to eachother, correct?.when are you going to explain to us the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution?M: Already dealt with it earlier in this post.TS:
Illogical thoughts are hard to articulate so I understand the delay.M: Is that why it took you until now to actually make any kind of point as opposed to the gibberish you were posting in all your earlier messages?M from previous post:

quote:

---

Why would there be a peer reviewed article on why the gaps argument is intellectually void? That a laywer with no background in science claim that ALL science is lying hardly bears much weight. Contrary to your personal belief, you are irrelevant to science and as a laywer you are professionally irrelevant to the search for the truth.

---

TS:
Gross overstatement. An unethical embellishment, if you adhere to any objective standard of ethics. Btw, does science have any codified ethical rules? Will the answer surprise us?M: You did not or could not answer the question. And what is a gross overstatement..that you consider your opinions to be more relevant than they actually are? Or that your profession does not qualify you to define science? Why are either of those unethical statements?TS:
But I must be getting to you if you can no longer address the issues and must resort to flamboyant lies to give yourself the illusory appearance of credibility. I never claimed ALL science is lyingM: Well I must have gotten to you from the beginning as all you were capable of doing from your first post to this one was to hurl insults and posts without any content. You brought up subjects such as the supposed fallacy of the god of the gaps and then have been unable to defend your claims. You could not propose a testable hypothesis of creation. You claim that abiogenesis and evolution are not separate yet cannot support that claim. Other than that you have done nothing but insult anyone you have interacted with. Mark24 repeatedly asked you to defend your claims and you have ignored him. It seems that you are the one lacking credibility.TS:
Publishing a patently defamatory statement is clear and convincing evidence YOU are lying. Suggestion: stop it. Lying is not good. It’s bad. Do you believe in good and bad?M: Ok then you are a liar by your own definition "What exact thought do you really wish to convey when the subject of your conclusion is an oxymoron? Moron."...or your feminazi diatribe against schrafinator...what goes around comes around there TS TS:
As far as the peer reviewed article, I was just asking you to back up your unfounded assertions with documented peer reviewed literature just as you ask others to do. If you can’t, you can either take a stab at explaining yourself or admit you are illogical to believe such a thing like abiogenesis and evolution are irrelevant to eachother.M: Why would there be a peer reviewed article about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? There is no peer reviewed article on the difference between tampon commercials and the bible either..does that mean both are inextricably entwined? LOL!

quote:

---

M: As opposed to all the credibility you have?

---

TS:
Indeed. I don’t fabricate or acquiesce to illogical catch phrases and pawn them off to the defenseless uninitiated. You do.M: Where and when? And how are you not a "defenseless uninitiated" with regards to science? You have not demonstrated any understanding of science in general or any branch of science specifically.TS:
Fine. I’m ignorant. What was the first population? That was one distinct SPECIES that gave rise to other species via evolution, correct? Let’s start from there.M: Depends on what you are asking. What was the first life form? What was the population that gave rise to the human gene pool? What was the last common ancestor of elephants and manatees?

quote:

---

M: Except all the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields. I am sure you have read all of it and base your objections on a thorough knowledge of the subject you oppose

---

TS:
Abiogenesis is the foundation of your belief in evolution. You keep getting sidetracked here. Now cough up the supporting data from multiple different scientific fields on abiogenesis.M: Maybe repeating fallacies ad nauseaum makes things appear true in the courtroom but not in science...abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. I am not getting sidetracked here.

quote:

---

M: Try reading the Origin of Species and figure it out yourself like most people with half a brain have been able to.

---

TS:
No, most people have not been able to figure it out. The origin of species says nothing about origins and nothing about the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution. Hence, discussions such as these. You’ve also yet to explain yourself though on the precise logic behind your ho-hum god of the gaps fallacy insecurities.M: LOL!!! Why doesnt the origin of species have anything to say about abiogenesis? Because the theory of evolution is not about abiogenesis. And you overate yourself...most people have been able to figure this out....also please show in which chapter of the origin of species that Darwin had to disprove the god of the gaps fallacy in order to establish the theory. However, it is clear you have not read the book.

quote:

---

M: Well, before "we" peer review it let's see if you have any academic credentials...let's see you demonstrate non-random mutation or genomic imprinting of the H19 locus using your profound legal knowledge. It should be easy if you are such an authority on all things scientific.

---

TS:
We are talking about logic, not the H19 locus. Focus! You are having a difficult time sticking with the issue. Do you have any credentials in logic?M: I am right on target TS. You have consistently claimed that I and other scientists are morons and that the science is would not hold up in court. You also imply that science has to meet a definition of legal evidence. So, I am asking you to demonstrate some very basic biological phenomenon based on the criteria you claim science has to meet. I don't think you can do it..prove me wrong.TS:
Your post to schrafinator made a fool out of you already..anything
further would be redundant.How disappointing TS...I thought you might bring a novel angle to creationist arguments against evolution with your legal angle. Instead, you are a below average fundie ranter who has absolutely no idea about science and especially evolutionary biology.
But congratulations on being banned faster than anyone else I have seen on this board...you must be proud of your achievement.TS:
But I don’t know what a fundie is, perhaps an inside joke?
M: I think I clarified it at the beginning of this post.TS:
But thanks for the compliment on getting censored by one of your fellow evolutionists. Can you spell b-i-a-s? Anyway, I’m flattered to be censored without specifically being told why! But I never did expect due process from biased censors.M: Ah, the paranoid tendency shines through...Actually, the last person banned was an evolutionist (nos482). And then SLPx (another evolutionist) was threatened with a ban for insulting a creationist. Can you actually prove a bias or are you just trying to make yourself feel better for your inability to play nice? Or nursing a persecution complex?TS:
Finally, Mams, using big words and meaningless verbiage to insult a lawyer is hardly consistent with your stated belief I am stupid. Again, you’ve impeached yourself. Congratulations!M: That you find what I say meaningless should suggest to me that you are smart? I have not altered my posting style to suit you either...boy, do you have an oversize ego..LOL! In any case, considering your posts to me, why should you care if I think you are stupid or not? Oh yeah, which big words? Abiogenesis is kind of long but otherwise?Impeached myself? Damn..at least Clinton got oral sex for his impeachment..all I get is a creationist lawyer ranting at me...life is just not fair.cheers,
M[Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 12-04-2002]

TS:
Logical minds want to see if there is any logical substantive analytical thought processes behind the boastings. Guess there's not. Case closed...M: Case closed...you do not possess a logical mind.TS:
Then I correctly identified it as an insider insult?M: It depends on the context...I was using it as an insult

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
Thank you Quetzal.

​

Yes, that is something that is an interesting topic. Are Virii or Prions alive. If they are, were they on the Ark? If so then which cow had the "mad cow" disease?

​

---

LOL!
There was only one cow on the ark and a bull...both had mad cow..but the pair of "British government kind" denied there was a problem On a more serious note, ahem, why would a prion be defined as alive or not? They are a product of an endogenous gene and hence a component of a living being (though with an as yet uknown function)..thought to be copper transport but not clearly established. Whether a virus could be considered alive or not is an interesting question.

On prions - well, yeah, it is a gene product. However, the way that a mutant PrPsc can transform normal PrPc versions of the same protein into the infectious version exponentially is sort of like some of the ideas about how early macromolecules reproduced - err, replicated - in abiogenesis. So a prion falls squarely into that grey area between "living" and "non-living" (c.f., the "Lipid World" hypothesis). A better case can be made for virii, of course - they're really just a form of endoparasite with all the bells and whistles removed.[/QUOTE]Hi Quetzal
I still think prions are distinct. The PrPc version is a normal transcribed and translated gene product with tissue specificity. In sporadic cases of CJD, by unknown mechanisms, enough PrPc is converted to PrPsc to produce pathogenesis. The only way the PrPsc in an infected individual is going to "reproduce" is if someone eats the infected individual. And even then, at least with human prion diseases, infection has a low probability of pathogenesis. But most important, the PrPc to PrPsc conversion is not reproduction or heritable mutation. It is merely converting existing protein from one form to another without generation of more overall prion protein. It is in effect not living..it is more like a catalytic reaction between two states. This is distinct from viruses. The contention that viruses are not alive is based on their inability to reproduce without a host. However, once host transcription and translation machinery have been co-opted the virus can reproduce itself, is subject to heritable mutation, and is subject to all the constraints of population genetics. So in principle I see a virus as a living entity. As for lacking all the bells and whistles..that is true from some viruses. But others are really really complicated with all sorts of bells and whistles..like HIV for example.cheers,
M

On the one hand, uneducated but sincerely religious people who accept the Creationist perspective are frequent visitors to discussion boards because of the perceived threat of evolution to their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the main reason evolutionists come here is because of the perceived threat of Creationism to science and/or science education, and it takes a certain degree of scientific knowledge and interest just to perceive this threat. This means that on average, at discussion boards like this the number of evolutionists with good scientic backgrounds will always well outnumber Creationists with equally good backgrounds.I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.
***********************I disagree. Why wouldnt "professional creationists" (if you can take that seriously)not be equally compelled to defend their ideas in this kind of forum or try to forward their agendas? Other than Behe, are there any creationist "scientists" that even have a background in sceintific fields remotely related to evolution? From everything I have read of them or from them (including Behe), they cling to the same cartoonish versions of science and the same fallacies as their less informed confederates. On the one hand, one cannot conclude that all creationists are less informed about some aspects of science i.e. maybe there are some excellent creationist physicists or engineers etc....but when it comes to evolution, they turn off the part of their brains that is capable of scientific inquiry...thus far, I have never seen or heard of an informed creationist population geneticist, zoologist, etc etc. and if they do exist, they certainly do not appear to be representative of the movement.Do you have evidence of a greater scientific understanding among creationists from a wider sampling than EvC?cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.

​

--Percy

---

​

Hey Percy!

​

How is this for some evidence?

​

The "Yes But" problem

​

It pretty clearly correlates level of education with the liklihood of disbelief of evolution; the less education one has, the more likely it is that you disbelieve evolution, AND the more likely it is that you do believe that God created the Earth and everything in it 10,000 years ago.

---

Cool link schrafinator...I had seen some of the individual polls but not the various polls combined.[Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 12-05-2002]

Hi Percy,
That about sums up my point. It is also similar to the data in the link schrafinator posted.Moose, Quetzal, and wj posted 3 examples of creationist scientists but again, from the statistics, the 3 are a minority. I still think it is expected that those accepting evolution in general are better educated in or at least more active in learning about science and that it is not an artifact of forums like EvC.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy

​

One thing that that hasn't been taken into account is asking people who are about to get a science degree. Could it be that people doing that already think naturalistically more then the average? Of course.

​

I still admitt that more education tends to increase eovluitonary thinking but but not to the extent that you think (due to my first sentence) and not for the reason you suspect. It is becasue most universities teach evoluttion only and ridicule creation of course!

---

***************+Hi TB,
I have never taken or heard of a university course on evolution that ridicules creation...creationism is not discussed since it is not science. How often do you hear discussions on evolutionary biology in church? Note: I have not been to church in a really really long time so maybe things have changed cheers
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Direct ridiculing is pretty rare in universities I agree but I've seen it and definitely in research seminars.

---

Hi TB,
Out of curiosity, was this in Australia or elsewhere? I am not surprised that creationism would be dealt with harshly by scientists. I would be surprised if the topic of creationism even came up at a research seminar much less a course on evolution and pop. gen. My personal recollections (don't claim they are representative) was struggling to calculate allele frequencies in polyploid species and arguing over which phylogenetic methods are best (which gets pretty nasty)...I did not even know there was a creationist "movement" in America until a few years ago when the Kansas board of education issue came up.

Hi TB [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
MammuthusIn a research seminar in Australia we recently (this year) had 'Of course some people don't believe in evoltuion but here is the sequence alignment' (as if that proved anything) with associated giggles from the audience. I'm not claiming any worse than that.M: Ok, I thought you meant that there was institutionalized ridicule of religion in an evolution program which would have surprised me. As you can see from the other posts in this thread on this topic, most of us were not aware of the conflict until relatively recently and our courses in college did not even cover the debate.TB:
Of course at the departmental coffee table admision of creationism is about equal to admitting belief in a flat earth. Evolution has been accepted mainstream as fact. Anything else is treated as pseudo-science and thus, understandably, ridicule. I hate seudo-science myself of course. Some creatinists are scientifically complete crackpots (I wont comment on their spiritual state).M: I am glad you see it that way. However, we have had this debate several times and I will raise it again. What do you see is different about the acceptance by the scientific community of evolution and say the theory of gravity or any other mainstream science? Evolution does not make your god impossible though it does make a literal interpretation of the bible impossible. To be fair, this entire site should be labelled Abiogenesis vs Creationism. Where you have come into conflict on this board (including with me) is when you as a structural biologist start proposing impossible scenarios i.e. "kinds" hyperspeciating after the great flood to fit the world into your religion. I doubt you do that when you are working on structural biological issues that are not particularly relevant to evolutionary principles. Most theistic evolutionists do not appear to take the bible (or any religious text) literally and therefore are not in conflict with evolutionary science even though they believe in a creator.TB:
You can judge me yourselves.M: As I see it I am not here to judge you personally. I find that you have been consistently one of the nicest, least offensive, and most responsive people on the board. I attack some of your statements and try to support my counterpoints. But am not judging you or condemning you personally.cheers,
M

Hi TBI do see these as different. Gravity can be tested across huge ranges of scale. Evolution can not.M: That statement is patently false TB.TB: You cannot prove how any actual organ arrived, or any subsystem for that matter.M: Hate to remind you again but you do not prove in science. You can find supporting evidence but all science is tentative...even structural biology TB:
All of the lab and field experiments on evolution show are allelic and gene loss effects.M: That is funny, I have even posted references that demonstrate gain of function mutations and duplications followed by mutation (as has SLPx)..perhaps you forgot?TB:
After milions of generations of flies and bacteria noeone has shown new subsystems arriving.M: Except for the entire Hox gene cascade, or hemoglobin in bacteria etc etc?TB:
We agree with all of the evolution you can show. All yo are left with is anatomies and genomes which you think evovled from each other. We only disagree on the part you haven't yet proved. Are we just stubborn or are we right? I believe the latter.M: Then you cannot accept the theory of gravity TB. Or can you show how it works in all detail?TB:
I am not arguing simply against abiogenesis. I am arguing about all the gene families that arose since the first prokaryote. The gene families that arose to make the first eukaryote . . . vertebrate . . . mammal . . . primate. It's not all abiogenesis. Any evolution that requires non-allelic or non-gene loss modifications I will disagrewe with you on becasue there is no evidence for that.M: I have posted evidence on many occassions. In our "kinds" debate I found references for every single case you mentioned was unknown. In every case it turned out someone was researching it and had evidence for evolution of the system.TB:
I thouroughly agree that is partially creationist expectation but there are hints of it that I think are better than your hints of non-allelic macroevolution.M: However, you never provide said evidence except to say you merely believe it is so. My whole point is that I doubt you do this when exploring a structural biology question. If you were looking at the PrPc to PrPsc transition, I doubt you would just say you believe that it folds in such and such a way...you would start with the observation that the protein conformation is different between the two, develope a hypothesis, test it, and continue to experiment based on your results, continuing to refine and develope your hypothesis. Not just saying "oh well, some mythical being I believe in makes me believe it is due to some unobserved hypermutation event so I don't need to bother doing the science." I just don't get that you do this with evolutionary biology given your background.

TB:
Demonstrate a non-allelic example of macroevolution.M: You will have to be more specific...syncytin is one example, the RAG2 gene evolution is another. I will deal with your Hox gene fallacy below.TBL:
If you think that evoltuion has reached the same state as the X-ray structure of hemoglobin you are seriously deluded Mammuthus. In any normal sense of the word the structure of hemoglobin is undoubtedly a fact. The status of macroevolution is not comparable since all the data is compatible with creation + diversification via allelic evolution.M: Please "prove" the structure of hemoglobin. And for each step, please demonstrate how the X-ray analysis in any less indirect in its measurements than what a population geneticist does or a genomics researcher does.M: That is funny, I have even posted references that demonstrate gain of function mutations and duplications followed by mutation (as has SLPx)..perhaps you forgot?[/qs]Duplication and mutaiton is allelic. Te results are differnetiated by an allelic difference. The proteins have the same fold and biochemical function. Show me the origin of a novel gene family and a novel subsystem.M: Duplications are NOT always allelic. The hox clusters do not just duplicate the same functions. Amphioxus has one cluster and cannot develop the body plan of say Drosophila. Flies can because of the novel functions of the newly duplicated Hox genes. Homoglobin exists for a completley different purpose in bacteria..that is a novel subsystem or whatever you are calling it when you see what hemoglobin does in multicellular organisms. This has been demonstrated to you over and over by myslef and SLPx yet you persist in claiming we have not covered this topic.TB:
But this is simply reuse of existing gene families. God could have done the reuse. Why is it automatically natural for you? That is only your assumption. When you mutate a hox gene and get extra body segments or legs don't you realise that not a sinlge new gene family has been evolved?M: Hmm then God sure was constrained to making the duplications etc all tracable by identity by descent i.e. phylogenetics as opposed to the poof bang it is there hypothesis. So it is not only my assumption. For most duplications etc. I can find the original i.e. retrotransposon induced mutation trace back to specific classes of HERVS etc. Not de novo poof bang. And lots of new gene families have been evolved...in fact all of them.
TB:
Regardless of how gravity works it is an epirical fact except in the most convoluted sense fo the word. You have not proven evolution. You have simply shown that life is made from reused pieces and at each level of complexity, brand new pieces. In additon you have shown that a given genome can be fine-tuned fro an envornment. We love this stuff as much as you do but it doesn't prove macroevolution.M: "regardless of how gravity works it is an empirical fact" is your agrument for gravity???? Nobody has "proved" any science. There is a theory of gravity and a theory of evolution. More independent disciplines support the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity! And that life re-uses old pieces as you put it works against macroevolution how? It works against creation as you would expect the creator to poof bang the new piece into existenct perfectly rather than generating suboptimal parts from duplicated or co-opted functions of an older system that then need to be fine tuned by natural selection.TB:
I think your seriously overating your rebuttals Mammuthus. All you ever found was that some of the components in a new sytem are reused. that is equally compatible with God or evolution.M: No, I have posted evidence in direct conflict with your creation myth scenarios at which point you have usually dropped the thread or claimed you still believe in a 6000 year ago hyperspeciation creation anyway.M: However, you never provide said evidence except to say you merely believe it is so. My whole point is that I doubt you do this when exploring a structural biology question. If you were looking at the PrPc to PrPsc transition, I doubt you would just say you believe that it folds in such and such a way...you would start with the observation that the protein conformation is different between the two, develope a hypothesis, test it, and continue to experiment based on your results, continuing to refine and develope your hypothesis. Not just saying "oh well, some mythical being I believe in makes me believe it is due to some unobserved hypermutation event so I don't need to bother doing the science." I just don't get that you do this with evolutionary biology given your background. [/qs]TB:
We are talking about the origin of life. God is one possibility. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the historical origin of life and the origin of a conformational change.M: My example flew over your head TB. I was pointing out the logic that you use regarding creation using a protein conformation change example. I was not equating prion pathogenesis with the origin of life. But more importantly, you ignored my first sentence.."However, you never provide said evidence except to say you merely believe it is so." If your "belief" is a possibility I will ask you to present the following:1) testable hypothesis
2) supporting data
3) predictions of this hypothesis
4) is the hypothesis falsifiable.This is the challenge to creationists that has never been met. Give it a shot.cheers,
M