Originally posted by Nineveh
"The only real scientists on that link are dead people. The others are not players, hence their opinions are the opinions of laymen."
I think you are misrepresenting most of the people on that list.
Not at all. By "player" I mean active research scientist who contribute significantly to science. You have made the claim that somehow this reference means something, yet you have not directed me to a single scientific paper, or other scientific publication supporting that view. The only thing you have directed me to is a list of names.
You realize that there are 10's of thousands of scientists in the mainstream scientific community who simply ignore all of the stuff that creationists claim because it is a waste of time.The few of us who do pay any attention to creationism do so *only* because there is a concerted effort by creationists to inject creationist dogma into grade school and high school science classes. If this sort of thing were not going on, the rest of us would view it the way we view all of the other pseudoscientific materials that are out there.
(regarding left-handed amino acids)
And in the mean time, they still can't get them to stick together in a lab. I'm happy you feel they are onto something anyway
Since all of biochemistry is based on left-handed molecules, and scientists have been synthesizing everything from proteins to DNA molecules for decades, your comments are specious.
Unless of course the evidence leads to the thought darwin could be wrong....
Here is where Darwin could be wrong:
Darwin stressed natural selection as the primary operative mechanism in evolution. It is quite possible that natural selection really has only a secondary role, and that one of the mutation mechanisms---most likely genetic drift---really rules the day. That's about it.
(regarding Behe being an evolutionist)
Or perhaps he understands how evo science "chokes" on evidence that points away from chuck at any level.
"Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small."
Behe does not dispute common descent, which is the phenomenon of evolution. No matter how you quote him out of context, spin doctor, or blatantly misrepresent Behe, Behe understands that the basic fact of common descent is not going to be changed by his ideas. He has proposed ID as an alternate mechanism of evolution. He has not science to back this up, only philosophical arguments.
The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models...",
you left out:
with the addition of the examples of "atomic theory"," plate tectonic theory", "big bang theory", "cell theory", "theory of evolution", and "germ theory of disease".
Heinous!
Anyway from the ones I looked through, that was about the only one making headway. So in the mean time, chuck goes unopposed, to freely teach the unlearned it changing definitions and understandings of evo itself.
Basically "chuck" has survived the most intense criticism---that of real scientists---. The things you think are challenges for evolution are propaganda.
The typical "evidences against evolution" proposal is designed by creationists as a way to force creationist material to be taught in grade school or high school science classes. As anybody in science knows, there are no evidences against evolution, so there is nothing in scientific literature for the students to quote. Their only alternative would be to draw on pseudoscientific literature.
In the bill you site, similarly, all of the other items that are listed are standard model theories, and have similarly survived the rigorous testing of the scientific community.
"Soul" and "spirit" are pre-scientific notions which amount to the explanation that things move because there is a "little man" on the inside of them making them move. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that life is nothing more than chemical machinery. (Indeed, the modern ID movement believes that this "machinery" has to have been created.)
So, are you saying these things chuck can't explain don't exist?
This has nothing to do with "chuck", it has to do with our basic understanding of physics. If we are to believe that there is something other than physics and chemistry going on we would have to have some sort of experimental or observational evidence of that. As near as we can tell, "souls" and "spirits" do not exist. It is up to the proponents of these and other paranormal phenomena to provide the necessary extraordinary evidence necessary to establish the existence of said phenomena. Otherwise, we have no reason to consider these things as being real.
Instead, what believers in the paranormal do is to attack mainstream science as being "closedminded", "unfair", or attempt to blow the tiniest apparent anomaly out of proportion as an argument that is supposed to invalidate a standard model theory.
As to morality, love, humour, and other attributes that we seem to share with other animal species to greater of lesser degree, these things attributes seem to exist because of a survival benefit.
You can't be serious.
Sure, why not? Even you must have had contact with animals. The "creature" skills that we use to interact with our domesticated animals are part of the commonality of social structure that we share with other species. Sure, we do other things, but by and large when your kid is playing with his/her cat or dog, that is possible only because humans share some of the same nonverbal communication skills and emotional structures with the animals in question.
Compare for example other pet examples, such as lizards or tarantulas. Keeping such animals as "pets" is more a matter of mechanics, and more simple. The "warm and fuzzy" is simply not there.
So, now compare "warm and fuzzy" or the notions you have of "cuteness or friendliness" with taxonomy. It just so happens that taxonomically close animals are the most easily relatable to humans in an emotional or social sense. As we get further away in the tree of common descent, the more alien the species become.
Compare a guard dog, with a guard tree. The latter may be effective, the other merely is all bark and no bite.
(regarding Kenyon's extended hiatus from
science)
He seemed to have a bit to say on Unlocking.
It is easy to be the bitter pessimist. Virtually any scientist in any field can tear apart the work of his peers or of his own discipline. We see this all of the time, particularly in older scientists, for whom the discipline has passed them by. Kenyon has an axe to grind, and he is grinding it. However, he is definitely *not* doing science. He is merely complaining.
You will note that Kenyon is not talking to scientists, only to lay people. That is one of the warning signs that your self-styled scientific "expert" is probably selling you a bill of goods.
I read that article and posted straight from Nature.com. So the only real news is from the actual paper magazine? Anyway, the article was about comparing two chromosomes. You took issue with even that.
The differences cited in the Nature article are not large enough to support the notion of "separate descent" for humans and chimpanzees.
Common sense looks at research and marvels at the complexity. Have you bothered to look at the new study I've been posting about?
Common sense leads the individual to realize that the world of any scientific discipline is a vast huge sea of information, and that those disciplines are the work of large collections of intelligent, honest, and ethical people.
The best attitude that the person should take is one of asking questions that illuminate, rather than those that obfuscate, and that any failure of that individual to understand is likely caused by that individuals' ignorance, and not a deficiency of the scientific field.
