Originally posted by Nineveh
I've asked Dimo and aharvey, now I'll ask you, please put all of your thoughts in one post or please don't be offended when I don't reply, thank you
Sure.
john2001:
ID doesn't actually do anything. It is not a scientific theory, only scientific sounding smoke and mirrors without substance. In the, what 7 years, of existence so-called ID theory has yet to generate a single scientific result. Even bad scientific theories have shown some usefulness.
Tell that to Behe.
So far Behe has done absolutely no science that backs up his IC claims. He wrote a little pop anti-science book, and has been playing the lecture circuit as a "controversial" figure.
john2001 wrote:
As to your snide offhand comment regarding left handed amino acids, I have know idea what you are talking about.
Would you like to investigate that issue on your own, or would you like me to give you some links?
Please do.
john2001 wrote:
The theory of evolution does not predict that a tree can turn into a dog. You would know that if you had a clue about evolution.
But apes turn into men, and dinos to birds. I guess you are trying to make evo harder than chuck did, he traces it all back the "primordial soup".
You are still displaying your ignorance. The terms "ape" and "men" are descriptive terms referring to modern species. The notion of species evaporates as we go back in the fossil record. Apes do not "turn into" men.
Rather what we call "men" and "apes" today, share common ancestry.
Similarly dinos do not "turn into" birds. Birds and dino's share common ancestry.
john2001:
Take a look at taxonomy. The structure of taxonomy generally describes the relatedness of species.
Yes, relatedness, not descent.
You and your relatives share common descent, don't they? Unless of course, you are adopted.
At any rate, my point is that taxonomy should be sufficient evidence for laymen like your self. If it isn't, well, so be it. Obviously, *nothing* would convince you. (Think about it next time you talk about the "cat family" or the "horse" family, or any of the other obvious familial relationships that abound in taxonomy.) No doubt you will make up some b.s. explanation about "baramins" or "kinds" or some other ad hoc nonsense to explain it.
john2001:
You have no scientific theory or mechanism for your "common creation". Science, on the other hand has reproduction with modification. Elegant, and apparently correct.
Except all 3 of you guys have blown off abiogenesis like it doesn't matter. Somehow life started on earth, either God created everything out of nothing with His power and knowledge or nothing created itself into everything. Unless you have a 3rd option...
I don't know about the other guys, but, I personally am not now, nor have I ever to my recollection discussed religion on this group. I am interested in people accurately representing the mainstream scientific viewpoints on matters of origins.
Such explanations as "God" or "creation" or any other of these things simply are not scientifically testable, so have no place in scientific discussions, no matter how badly an individual wants them there.
So my "3rd opinion" is the one that the scientific community uses is that there are unresolved issues in science. That is the very reason for having science is to study and resolve the unresolved. However, science is a displine of supreme honesty, and the honest person admits that there are an infinity of things we do not know.
The point is that we in science do not have to state an opinion beyond what is reasonable when asked a question. We are not in the worldview philosophy business, so we do not have to guess it all right at the beginning. We take into account that our knowledge is tentative and transitory.
All I ask, is that anybody (such as your self) have (or develop) the honesty and forthrightness to do the same.
john 2001:
Scientific advancement is proceeding at a rate faster than at any time in history. Your opinion regarding "ID Scientists" is an example of an opinion formed purely out of propaganda. If true, you should be able to point to scientific journal articles and technological developments spawned out of ID methods. You can't, because there aren't any. Indeed, to date, there are no "ID methods".
Actually I am capable of arriving at my own conclusions when presented the evidence. I don't need the Roman Catholic Church (evo science) to explain the Bible (origins) to me. Forgive my "religious" lingo here but they are so similar it's scarry.
...Ah, and you're supposed to be Galileo in this discussion... Guess you don't know anything about Galileo, do you?
I suggest that you read _The Sleep Walkers_ by Arthur Koestler, some time. You would find out that it was not a scientific issue that got Galileo into hot water. It was his attempt to give the Church fathers a lecture on an alternate interpretation of scripture that would permit his Copernican view to be reconciled with Biblical literalism. He later lied before the Inquisition and claimed that he was really trying to *disprove* the Copernican system.
So, no. No Catholic Church analogies for you today.
john2001:
If anything is holding people back, it is the gutting of our educational system caused by pressure on teachers from the organized program of disinformation coming out of the creationist movement.
Every news item about creationism getting into a classroom is about creationism being rejected as far as I have read. Both in OH and MT this has happened. Could you please give me some info on where creationism is actually taught in a pullik skool classroom?
Sure, those attempts to inject creationism into schools have failed. The fact that there is a political movement that keeps trying to push these things into the public school system makes evolution a political hot potato that causes writers of textbooks and teachers to try to skirt the issue.
john2001:
The general view of the origin of life is that it arose through chemical processes. Those chemical pathways are, by necessity, different from those that operate in cells today.
Which is what abiogenesis is about. They can't get non life to make itself into life. Kenyon changed his mind on this very topic.
Yep. That abiogenesis happened, there is no doubt. How it happened is the thing that is not understood.
john2001:
The "magical" origin is the one proposed by the creationists and the ID-ologoues.
Like I told ahavery, to a pagan, I guess it would appear that what God did as "magic". But for those of us who serve Him, we know it was an awsome display of His power and knowledge.
Scientist use the term "magic" to refer to anything that is invoked that is beyond any possibility of scientific description or explanation. "God" is basically a label that has no scientific meaning, and thus has no place in science.
john2001:
Molecular systematics and its relationship to classical Linean is a big topic now.
Strat said it was about 20 years old...
The idea has been around about 20 years, but the technology to do this sort of stuff easily has only been around a few years. Mapping full genomes is still a relatively new thing.
john2001:
I really don't know what you mean by "time and money wasted". I seriously doubt that you have even the tiniest clue as to what science is all about, or how science is funded. As to public education, maybe it was wasted in your case
(oh look ma! another pompous evo!)
What I have been saying over and over is, you guys keep talking about how "ignorant" everyone is but the money given to teach science in the classrooms of public education is used to teach evo. For how many years? So if you want to blame someone, don't come to ID's doorstep, look in your own back yard.
Pompous is pretending that somehow you have the knowledge (with no education, to boot) to evaluate whether or not technical topics have merit.
I think you have a really warped notion about how much money is supplied to teaching. If anything, it is a lack of funds that is part of the problem of public education. Having to fight off creationist garbage is not helping the situation.
john2001.
Very few, actually. The myth of the lone inventor making the great scientific breakthrough, only to be suppressed by the dogmatic establishment, is the sort of thing that plays well on Art Bell, but in real life doesn't really hold up.
Except in reality.
In reality, you have to get a decent education to advance human knowledge. How you get that education is on your shoulders. So, get one, and you may begin to get a clue.
john2001:
Of course, that is their claim. In each case,
it is apparent that neither of these men actually do any science related to the topic of evolution. In each case, they also seem to be publicity hounds who want to sell popularized "anti-science" books.
Ok you win the prize for the "biggest blusterer" on this thread. I think you need to find out who Kenyon actually is instead of guessing.
Ok how about a title like
Biochemical Predestination?
And it's quite clear from your last 3 paragraphs you are completely clueless about Kenyon.
You mean
was don't you? Kenyon used to be a decent scientist, way back when he did research back in the 1970's. He stopped doing research at that time, and has been working primarly a college administrator. (FYI people who become department chairmen don't do science. They don't have the time.)
What he writes now are pathetic anti-science creationist tracts, and pity 'commentaries' of fields of science that he has not kept up with.
The fact that he would lend his name to a piece of garbage like "Of Pandas and People" indicates that he is now in the propaganda business, and he is doing it for *religious reasons*, not scientific ones.
(FYI, all of Kenyon's scientific publications support the notion of abiogenesis, though these are dated now.)
john2001:
Sure, look up "mutation" and "genetic drift". There are a host of mutation mechanisms, and those, combined with genetic drift cause genomes to change with time. In fact, genomes *must* change with time. There is no alternative. Mendelian genetics assumes that genes do not change. In essense, Darwin presupposed both Mendelian regularity, and mechanisms of mutation for his theory of evolution.
A whole paragraph to say:
"An allele is any one of a number of alternative forms of the
same gene occupying a given locus (position) on a chromosome"
So now, do you have any info specifically about the shift in frequency and how this might (in large populations) aid chuck in the common anscesor ideas?
I'll also add that mutation today usually has undesirable results, not positive ones.
My reply was to point you in the direction of an answer of why Mendelian genetics fails. Mendelian genetics fails because the Mendel model does not have a mechanism for genetic change. Real genetics does change, and these mechanisms are the mechanisms that introduce variation into populations.
FYI, most mutations are neutral.
john2001 wrote:
One comparision? I suggest you get a clue. Comparative genetics has been practised for more than 20 years, and in that time the view of the relatedness of species has been clarified. The whole notion of common descent is indespensible for understanding those genetic similarities as well as any genetic differences.
I suggest you get to that
Nature article read,
and comprehend what it says.
I did. It's a tremendously exciting and important result that no doubt will change the way we view common descent. However, it by no means invalidates the notion of common descent. In fact, the study would make no sense if the idea of common descent was not there.
john2001:
Your point is really that when you don't understand the technical reasons that your ideas are bogus, you resort to the "big conspiracy" explanation.
But in reality, one of your evo brothers was trying to pass off his own version of what "junk DNA" is as according to evo science. See he was basically doing the same thing you did with Kenyon, you are guessing in an effort to try to appear wise.
Apparently not.
john2001:
All of biology and genetics that we see today are examples of the richness that has sprung from an increased understanding of evolution. Basically, "Chuck" fathered most of the biological sciences.
Except for Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics);Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).
That would be the same Francis Bacon, who warned about people attempting to mix science and biblism.. As to the others, their work is tied together by the results that have sprung from Darwin's ideas.
john2001:
Basically what is taught in public school should reflect the issues and results of mainstream science. It should not be influenced by third party self-styled "experts".
It's up to evo who controls it to change it.
The only problem with your hypothesis is that nobody controls science. Science is a free marketplace, and the only reason that creationism, or ID (whatever) is not selling is that that free market sees no value in it.
john2001:
I t appears, however, that some form of RNA was the progenitor of DNA.
As to a rough sketch of what scientists think about the subject that you can understand, please see:
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/...Before_DNA.html
So where did the RNA get all that info to build
DNA in the right sequence?
You are making the mistake of believing that there is only one possible configuration for life. Life as we know it, is a particular configuration. There is no reason to believe that it is the only configuration.
