Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
434 online now:
(434 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 1/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 141 of 415 (498477)
02-10-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by traste
02-10-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Conclusions
Oh!Is that all?Isnt he perfomed also experiment about whether abiogenesis genaration could have taken place?In fact he said "never will the doctrine spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Arthur C. Clarke (Clarke's first law of prediction)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 9:55 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 8:41 PM Coyote has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 152 of 415 (498793)
02-14-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-13-2009 10:33 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
The real problem is you could not demonstrate those things(complexities observe in life )came by change whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.The real conclusion is "God" did it.

Mathematics will come up with an explanation for whatever science demonstrates. By itself it is nothing but a modeling tool, and it certainly doesn't prove or disprove the theory of evolution.

There are no theories of abiogenesis; there are hypotheses competing with one another to become a theory. So far none has succeeded. Big deal; give them a little time before you declare the field dead and buried.

And your conclusion that "'God' did it" is a religious belief, not a scientific conclusion. A few centuries ago thunder was ascribed to the gods, as were diseases. To try to fit various deities into gaps in our knowledge is a loosing game, as those gaps are all to soon filled by scientific advances.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:33 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:38 AM Coyote has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 154 of 415 (498797)
02-14-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Blue Jay
02-14-2009 1:21 AM


David R. Pilbeam
David R. Pilbeam is a well-respected anthropologist.

When I took my first evolution course in graduate school in 1973 we used his The Evolution of Man as the text.

See this thread for details on the quote mining referred to.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 1:21 AM Blue Jay has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 175 of 415 (498828)
02-14-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by traste
02-14-2009 3:16 AM


Re: Conclusions
Because you imply evolution is well supported by evidence,could you please go further from that rather than asserting it is well supported?You could demonstrate whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.Mathemathics plays a big role here since we are talking chance events.But none of you guys ever me a mathemethical proof that the complexities and precision observe in life came by change.

Try this mathematical treatment:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

The real conclusion is God did it.

Nonsense. It sounds more like you are preaching than reporting on the conclusions of science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:16 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:39 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 180 of 415 (498833)
02-14-2009 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by traste
02-14-2009 6:39 AM


Re: Conclusions
Ill ready try that one and that is mathemathically absurd.Unintelligent cause nonsense..

What the on-line lecture I referred you to upthread shows is that genetic systems can come about naturally, no deities needed.

Do you have any specific arguments against that, or are you just going to continue preaching?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 6:39 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by traste, posted 03-24-2009 12:03 AM Coyote has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 190 of 415 (498875)
02-14-2009 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
02-14-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Let's play the Creolution game
Another way of modeling evolution is to throw 25 dice, trying to get all sixes.

The mathematician, knowing nothing of biology, would be throwing those 25 dice for years.

The biologist would throw the 25 dice, keep those that were sixes and throw the rest until all were sixes. Elapsed time about 3 minutes.

The mathematicians who come up with the huge odds against (whatever) are using the first method. The on-line lecture I linked to above presents a good example of the second method; it modeled genetic networks and found that they were very robust, and that a lot of pathways led to the same network.

Creationists won't buy that approach, of course.

(There was one creationist on another website who insisted that the odds against evolution were 1720 against! We just couldn't make him see the error of that number. Another told us that the "law of thermal documents" showed evolution couldn't possibly happen!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 4:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 5:55 PM Coyote has taken no action
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 12:26 PM Coyote has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 228 of 415 (499524)
02-19-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by traste
02-18-2009 11:43 PM


Science vs. religion
The problem with all(supporters of evolution)is that they just easily dissmissed any problems that evolutionary theory confronts,calling every people who presented that problem as,idiot,ignorance of the topic,just liked what you did.

Perhaps the problem is that creationists approach evolution using religious belief instead of evidence, and they expect that scientists will accept their beliefs without evidence--when there are mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Sorry, that's not going to fly.

If you wish to make a difference in science, you need to being scientific evidence.

Mathematicians are not scientists, and their calculations and models in this field are only useful when they accurately model and describe the natural world. If they fail to model all of the biological variables correctly, their models are useless to science. Of course, those models will still be used by creationists because they like the results, and they don't care about the accuracy of the models as long as they support their a priori religious beliefs.

You don't like creationists being called ignorant, etc.? Perhaps if creationists studied science and produced scientific evidence, that wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, creationists are more likely to distort and misrepresent science in order to try and make it serve their ends. And unfortunately, most creationists are unwilling to study science because they are convinced that it is wrong, and why study something that is wrong?

When you substitute belief for evidence, you are liable to run into problems with science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by traste, posted 02-18-2009 11:43 PM traste has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 261 of 415 (506032)
04-21-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by traste
04-21-2009 10:45 PM


Re: Re; Im not confused ,you are
I'll agree to some degree,but his experiment clearly points out that both abiogenesis and spontaneous genaration are fraud science.HAVE FAITH THEN.

This is the Science Forum. But you recommend that we have "HAVE FAITH."

Faith in what? Remember, one of the primary definitions of "faith" is:

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof

So do you have faith in the scientific method or some supernatural entity?

When you can answer this question, you will have chosen whether you are pro-science or anti-science.

Because there is empirical evidence to support the scientific method and its findings. There is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings. (That's where faith comes in.)

When you believe in things without any empirical evidence, while rejecting opposing things for which there is a huge amount of empirical evidence, you can only be described as anti-science.

Edited by Coyote, : minor edit


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by traste, posted 04-21-2009 10:45 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by traste, posted 05-24-2009 11:38 PM Coyote has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 336 of 415 (514304)
07-06-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by traste
07-06-2009 1:03 AM


Challenge--name five frauds or retract your statement
If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.

Nonsense.

I challenge you to (in a separate thread) name five frauds committed by "evolutionists."

I'll even spot you the first one, Piltdown Man, which was actually a hoax because scientists were the victims of that hoax until they figured out what had actually happened. But I'll give you that one as a freebie.

Your challenge is to come up with four genuine frauds committed by real evolutionary scientists.

ps. Avoid the creationist websites, because they will lie to you. When it comes to science, they have no evidence for their position so they are forced to lie about what science has found and what those findings mean. Their claims have been refuted time and time again, so don't waste our time with their lies.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by traste, posted 07-06-2009 1:03 AM traste has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 372 of 415 (514574)
07-08-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by traste
07-08-2009 10:33 PM


Flawed analogy--creation "science" again
For example because they observe microchange,they reason out that micro evolution is possible. But this logic is like saying because a man can jump at 2 meters he might as well jump at 1000000 meters. Very illogical.

Absolutely flawed analogy. Typical creation "science" at work.

Please don't try to take up a career in science; you don't seem to grasp the essentials. Your method of thinking seems to be influenced by your a priori religious belief, and that seems to be the opposite of the scientific method.

A better analogy might be that a single organism can travel two meters in its lifetime--how many meters from their starting place could be traveled by an ever-expanding population of the same organisms over a period of millions of years?

This is a better analogy because its closer to the way evolution works--all of those micro-changes add up to macro-changes over time, whether creationists want them to or not.

And I have yet to see a creationist propose a testable or verifiable mechanism that prevents the micro-changes from adding up to macro-changes over time. The reason seems to be that creationists base their opinion here on the bible rather than science, and on the religious belief in "kinds" rather than the scientific evidence for species and speciation. They refuse to see or accept the evidence which shows that particular religious belief to be incorrect--because they hold that idea as a belief, and it is not subject to scientific evidence. (The exact opposite of the scientific method.)

And as Heinlein correctly noted,

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by traste, posted 07-08-2009 10:33 PM traste has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022