Evolutionary theory hinders scientific progress.

[Stripe]

So. Evolutionists. Is there any DNA that does not have a specific purpose, that might be the result of mutation?

 

[bob b]

Bob, You have made yourself look stupid again. Your hot new evidence is 38 years old. You have asserted that TOE had some how slowed down this discovery but 38 years ago is about when the first work with DNA was being done. .

If you believe that DNA was discovered only about 38 years ago around 1969, you have some serious science history reading to catch up on.

 

[noguru]

Yes, unfortunately that is true, but in addition that one "clue" from 38 years ago did not instantly overturn the "junk" DNA dogma or affect the "neutral mutation" assumptions, because revolutions in science typically take far longer. And with regard to textbooks we are talking more like generations. Just check yor child's textbook treatment of evolution and see.

Bob, do you even read my responses? The miscommunication associated with " junk DNA" is logically irrlelevant to the validity of the concept of "neutral mutations". The connection you claim exists is due to either your poor understanding of the subjects at hand or because you are purposely misrepresenting the reality.

I don't rely on child's textbooks to get an accurate portrayal of current evolutionary biology. It suprises me that you would.

The point of this thread was that evolutionary dogma "hinders" scientific progress, not that it stops it dead in its tracks.

You have made this point 3 times now. And you have still failed or refused to give a clear and accurate explanation of how the evidence supports this claim.

Real science will eventually prevail to overturn all of the evolutionary myths that are held, but teaching it as "dogma" slows this process down, and being in the twilight of my earthly existence, I am impatient for science to do its job and discard even more of Darwin's misconceptions.

Evolution is not a myth. It may turn out in the future that there is a more accurate model that better explains the upcoming and current evidence. But it is certainly not a myth.

And yes, I know you are impatient. I bet you can't wait for your eternity of bliss and immortality. And I strongly suspect that while you are still here on this earth you are trying to rack up some points so that your position and assignment in heaven will be a loftier one.

 

[noguru]

So. Evolutionists. Is there any DNA that does not have a specific purpose, that might be the result of mutation?

I don't know, Stipe. Is this relevant?

 

[bob b]

Blind dogma of any kind is harmful to science, including Creationist dogma.
No one was stopping people from studying the mystery DNA,

What you do not take into consideration in this statement is that both people and money are necessary to conduct scientific research. Grants must be obtained to fund research facilities and pay the salaries of the people involved in it.

If any area of research is thought to be nonproductive then people will gravitate to areas that look more promising, and this also applies to the decisions regarding which proposals will receive funding and which will not.

Follow the money. The myth of "junk" DNA hindered progress in discovering its function. There were plenty of other areas of research that looked more promising and were more actively pursued, which hindered progress in the past regarding what the "junk" really does, and probably continues to do so even today.

and in this instance, any "hindrance" or oversight pales in comparison to the advances in science that ToE has brought us.

As I mentioned previously, huge sums of research dollars and human effort are being wasted even today because of evolutionary dogma, specifically because of the assumption that all differences between different types of organisms are due to random mutations accumulating over millions of years.

As a side note, where the scientists who made the discovery Creationist?

There are many scientists who believe in creation, but would not openly emphasize this or propose projects with creationist overtones (which would stand no chance of being approved anyway). The discoveries we have seen come from the application of vast sums of research money which comes ultimately from government taxation. Actually I have no problem with this except I deplore the fact that so much money is wasted on researching areas which are only evolutionary myths. In this sense overall progress is being hindered, because the wasted money would be far better spent on research directed at how biological mechanisms work, not on some scenario of how they might have gotten to their present state by the fallacious evolutionary mechanism of "random mutations plus natural selection".

 

[CRMRC]

Well I guess it still remains to be seen that the IDers over at the creation science institute will turn up some evidence rather than rhetorical arguments, if you want to talk about the hindrance of scientific progress, then lets talk about a model that overthrows a current one that has produced evidence without producing any of its own. What exactly do you think we would discover should we adopt creationist or ID models of biochemistry? So far it seems like the only work that the IDers have done is think-tank-like work, no actual discoveries or science. And I garantee you that if someone found a real kink in the current theory of evolution based on evidence rather than rhetoric, the research would be funded in a heartbeat. I also imagine that, like other famous corrections that have happened in science, the kink would not overthrow evolutionary theory but make it more complete.

 

[bob b]

Bob, do you even read my responses? The miscommunication associated with " junk DNA" is logically irrlelevant to the validity of the concept of "neutral mutations". The connection you claim exists is due to either your poor understanding of the subjects at hand or because you are purposely misrepresenting the reality.

That is your erroneous opinion.

I don't rely on child's textbooks to get an accurate portrayal of current evolutionary biology. It suprises me that you would.

Slander will get you nowhere. The books in my library which I rely on for understanding evolutionary theory are written by the major players in the field.
You know this or should know it because I quote from them all the time on this forum. Thus you should be ashamed of your "child's textbooks" comment.

Evolution is not a myth. It may turn out in the future that there is a more accurate model that better explains the upcoming and current evidence. But it is certainly not a myth.

The myth is that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

And yes, I know you are impatient. I bet you can't wait for your eternity of bliss and immortality. And I strongly suspect that while you are still here on this earth you are trying to rack up some points so that your position and assignment in heaven will be a loftier one.

I follow Jesus Christ and His command to evangelize. If that racks up points in heaven all the better, but actually my motivation and activities here are to help those who are tempted by the wiles of evolution to see that at its very root it is a lie from that entity whom Jesus called "the evil one".

Jesus created multiple types of creatures in the beginning, just as it says in the Genesis story.

 

[bob b]

What exactly do you think we would discover should we adopt creationist or ID models of biochemistry?

We would discover that the concept of all life developing from a hypothetical primitive protocell was a naturalistic myth and stop wasting precious research resources on it, thus freeing up more resources to pursue more actively how biological mechanisms function. Such research has the very real possibility of being useful to society in several important ways:

1) medical cures, and

2) bringing more people to belief and obedience to their Creator.

 

[Stripe]

I don't know, Stipe. Is this relevant?

I think it is. How about you noguru. Would you be willing to sell for $$$ the parts of your DNA researchers decided were evolutionary dead-ends?

 

[noguru]

That is your erroneous opinion.

So you say. I have pointed out clearly how your opinion is erroneous. I guess you feel that you need only make assertions.

Slander will get you nowhere. The books in my library which I rely on for understanding evolutionary theory are written by the major players in the field.
You know this or should know it because I quote from them all the time on this forum. Thus you should be ashamed of your "child's textbooks" comment.

How is responding to your comment about "child's textbooks" slander? You are the one who first made a point regarding "child's textbooks" having an innacurate view. I was pointing out that they are not the best source for a current understanding of the issue. If you truly recognize this then why the claim of slander? You should be ashamed of your own strategy at debate.

The myth is that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

It is not a myth. It is a hypothesis that has little evidence right now, but that evidence is building.

I follow Jesus Christ and His command to evangelize. If that racks up points in heaven all the better, but actually my motivation and activities here are to help those who are tempted by the wiles of evolution to see that at its very root it is a lie from that entity whom Jesus called "the evil one".

This may be true. But I think that your style of debate coupled with your strategy in which you prey on misperceptions is doing Jesus and his church a disservice.

Labeling scientific ideas with which you disagree as inspired by Satan is also indicative of your style of debate. It has become evident that when your argument is poor and unfounded that you fall back on this tactic of labeling your philosophical opponents evil. Considering what you have to work with, I am not suprised by this desperate measure you employ.

Jesus created multiple types of creatures in the beginning, just as it says in the Genesis story.

Thanks for the proclamation of your opinion. I think I will make my decision based on the empirical evidence. Rather than basing it on your unsupported assertion regarding the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account.

At any rate, you still have not supported the assertion you made in the OP. You have made the assertion at least three times in this thread, and you have yet to provide a clear and accurate explanation of how the evidence supports this assertion. Going off on these other tangents does not count as support.

 

[chair]

This whole thread is ridiculous.

Science often progresses this way. A theory is supported by experimental results. The theory gets strengthened and accepted. Additional research gets done that shows that the first theory wasn't right or didn't really explain everything. At first the old theory remains accepted, becasue a large body of knowledge supports it. After a while enough new evidence accumulates that scientists realize that they have to modify the old theory.

There are plenty of examples that have nothing to do with biology. Crystal Field Theory, for example. Or take Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.

This has nothing to do with some "evolutionist conspiracy". Science is self-correcting by its nature, but sometimes the correction takes time. So what?

 

[noguru]

I think it is. How about you noguru. Would you be willing to sell for $$$ the parts of your DNA researchers decided were evolutionary dead-ends?

What? I am not willing to sell any parts of my body. I realize that at any one moment I can't know all there is to know about my body or the physical world. It would be foolish of me to assume that I can ever know everything there is to know.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

We would discover that the concept of all life developing from a hypothetical primitive protocell was a naturalistic myth and stop wasting precious research resources on it, thus freeing up more resources to pursue more actively how biological mechanisms function. Such research has the very real possibility of being useful to society in several important ways:

1) medical cures, and

2) bringing more people to belief and obedience to their Creator.

So science should be directed by your whims, not by a desire to pursue truth and understanding? Sorry if I'm a little underwhelmed.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I think it is. How about you noguru. Would you be willing to sell for $$$ the parts of your DNA researchers decided were evolutionary dead-ends?

You know, the useless bits- like Stipe's critical thinking faculty...

 

[Johnny]

If you believe that DNA was discovered only about 38 years ago around 1969, you have some serious science history reading to catch up on.

And if you think we were sequencing DNA from the outset, you have some serious catching up to do. Seriously.

 

[CRMRC]

We would discover that the concept of all life developing from a hypothetical primitive protocell was a naturalistic myth and stop wasting precious research resources on it, thus freeing up more resources to pursue more actively how biological mechanisms function. Such research has the very real possibility of being useful to society in several important ways:

1) medical cures, and

2) bringing more people to belief and obedience to their Creator.

That would not be a discovery, that would simply be a result of an unfounded paradigm shift. Evidence is required to refute a theory. I am asking you specifically what scientific discoveries and advances would be made should we simply drop evolutionary theory and take up ID without evidence as the ID advocates would like to have done. My point is that science is based upon falsification, and this has not happened yet with evolution; rather it has produced useful and reasonable evidence to support a natural means of being put here. It seems to me that if we dropped evolution for ID at its current state of development, we would not be taking a step forward in science, but we would be doing violence to scientific thought and reasoning. That sounds more like a hindrance to me than anything else. And I have no problem with creation scientists doing research, I think it is great that they do it. Of course from my perspective they are wasting their money and doing theology rather than science. But hey, if they were to produce any evidence contrary to current evolutionary theory and require that it be changed based on the standard scientific route and held up to the standards at which science is performed, I think it is great science and would be totally open to them changing our ideas about it. But rhetoric is not science nor is it evidence, so to suggest that we throw away all of the evidence collected in favor of a model with no evidence would be a huge hindrance to actual science being done.

Also, I am very curious what types of medical cures you refer to, and what would be stopping biochemists from developing these drugs currently.

Also, I have no problem with belief and obedience to my creator. I don't read the bible as a science book, I read it as a spiritual book containing spiritual meaning. The creation story does not have to be literal and scientific for it to be true, just like Jesus' parables do not have to be literal and representative of some actual historical events in order to be seen as true. I really don't like being contentious over these types of issues. It grieves me that any attempt at discussion regarding "hot topic" items degenerates into debates rather than dialogue. Of course, the internet makes these things a bit easier (arguing, that is!)

Anyway, best to you.

C

 

[Stripe]

What? I am not willing to sell any parts of my body. I realize that at any one moment I can't know all there is to know about my body or the physical world. It would be foolish of me to assume that I can ever know everything there is to know.

Can't argue with that.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Can't argue with that.

Is your avatar from the forthcoming movie, Stipe? Despite being skeptical at first, I must admit it looks like it might be good...

 

[Stripe]

You know, the useless bits- like Stipe's critical thinking faculty...

My critical thinking faculties are in noguru's deoxyribonucleic acid?

 

[bob b]

That would not be a discovery, that would simply be a result of an unfounded paradigm shift. Evidence is required to refute a theory. I am asking you specifically what scientific discoveries and advances would be made should we simply drop evolutionary theory and take up ID without evidence as the ID advocates would like to have done. My point is that science is based upon falsification, and this has not happened yet with evolution; rather it has produced useful and reasonable evidence to support a natural means of being put here. It seems to me that if we dropped evolution for ID at its current state of development, we would not be taking a step forward in science, but we would be doing violence to scientific thought and reasoning. That sounds more like a hindrance to me than anything else. And I have no problem with creation scientists doing research, I think it is great that they do it. Of course from my perspective they are wasting their money and doing theology rather than science. But hey, if they were to produce any evidence contrary to current evolutionary theory and require that it be changed based on the standard scientific route and held up to the standards at which science is performed, I think it is great science and would be totally open to them changing our ideas about it. But rhetoric is not science nor is it evidence, so to suggest that we throw away all of the evidence collected in favor of a model with no evidence would be a huge hindrance to actual science being done.

Also, I am very curious what types of medical cures you refer to, and what would be stopping biochemists from developing these drugs currently.

Also, I have no problem with belief and obedience to my creator. I don't read the bible as a science book, I read it as a spiritual book containing spiritual meaning. The creation story does not have to be literal and scientific for it to be true, just like Jesus' parables do not have to be literal and representative of some actual historical events in order to be seen as true. I really don't like being contentious over these types of issues. It grieves me that any attempt at discussion regarding "hot topic" items degenerates into debates rather than dialogue. Of course, the internet makes these things a bit easier (arguing, that is!)

Anyway, best to you.

C

I am not asking that evolutionary theory be dropped, only like Luther and the Catholic Church, that it be reformed, specifically that the emphasis on unlimited descent and random mutations be dropped.

The Catholic Church had drifted into dogma not based on scripture.

Evolutionary theory has adopted certain "dogmas" that are not based on evidence.

Here is another example I just ran across.

Stephen Jay Gould (5) told an interesting anecdote about Ernst Mayr at a meeting of the Evolution Society. Ernst Mayr attacked the claim that single base mutations in DNA that do not result in a different amino acid are not detected by natural selection (neutral mutations or silent mutations). Mayr claimed that such changes could not, a priori and in principle be neutral. These mutations must have some effect on the organism, perhaps energetic, that selection can "see" even if the coded amino acid does not alter (12). According to Gould this is a clear example of dogmatism. http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho37.htm

Neither Mayr nor Gould were relying on evidence. Ironically Mayr's "guess" was verified recently (in a way) by experimental result. It was shown that even though 2 stretches of DNA varied only by a so-called "silent" mutation, meaning that the proteins that would be produced would be identical, that the effect on the organism would be different, namely that a larger quantity of protein would be produced in one case than the other.

Mayr was right in that the outcome as far as the functional effect on the organism would be different.