Darwin foes link Global Warming to Evolution. WTF?

[JohnOfSheffield]

John, I hate to tell you, but in any lab I've ever seen I can't create an ecosystem and watch natural processes create a new species. If you know of one, let us know.

Seriously? NO, not seriously, if it's seriously meant then all hope is lost for you, you're a complete fucking retard and biology... phhht, you'd not even understand why that phhht came out of my arse.

The ecosystem required for observable speciation was blood, omg, we can has blood in LAB, SOMEONE TELL HAYABUSA!

The speciation was in realtime, meaning that it was actually an ongoing culture.

If i could do a quick fucking google i'd provide the link, so fast and soooo fucking furious that it'd make your head spin.

But you know i can't, so i hope soemeone else will.

You're pissing me off, you really are because you should know better. but ok...

As i remember it it was bacterial speciation of campylobacter and the study was conducted by... Sheppard?

There were some others too.

If i could use a search engine i'd own your arse, you know that, right?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that Hayabusa Rider was correct in saying that evolutionary science is an empirical science. Empirical means that you observe something happening (or something that exists) and make deductions from those observations. For instance, one cannot take Halobacterium salinarum and devise a repeatable experiment whereby it is induced to evolve into H. cutirubrum (or vice versa); it simply cannot be done. It doesn't mean that one didn't come from the other or that they didn't diverge from a common ancestor, it simply means that evolution does not work on those laws and within man's timetable. Again, that has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary biology, it's simply a limitation of the science.

I've read white papers and articles about one species diverging into another under experimental pressure, but again, these are bacteria and similar creatures that are quite genetically plastic anyway, and not every evolutionary biologist agrees that in fact these experiments are speciation. (Ever read systematics on a particular bacterium? It's a nightmare, which is why even experts often identify bacteria only to the genus unless there is a true need to go further.) But even if the experiments are considered valid, this does not change the fact that evolutionary biology (chemistry, etc.) is by nature an empirical science. Observing speciation is still an empirical science. Being able to devise repeatable experiments whereby one can take one species, introduce given forcing factors, and get a second (or multiple) divergent, stable, reproducing species would be required to go beyond that. Even if (when?) we reach that level with bacteria, most organisms have life cycles far too long for that to be possible, so evolution must remain an empirical science.

Once again, Hayabusa Rider's point was NOT that evolution is a false science. It was merely that it is an empirical science.

Observing speciation does make it a physical science..

I did not mean to imply that it being an empeirical science would make it any less.

Evolution is a physical as well as emperical science and is used as both for different purposes, say the aids or ebola virus, it's mutations and differences, and teh TOE as it stands.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Seriously? NO, not seriously, if it's seriously meant then all hope is lost for you, you're a complete fucking retard and biology... phhht, you'd not even understand why that phhht came out of my arse.

The ecosystem required for observable speciation was blood, omg, we can has blood in LAB, SOMEONE TELL HAYABUSA!

The speciation was in realtime, meaning that it was actually an ongoing culture.

If i could do a quick fucking google i'd provide the link, so fast and soooo fucking furious that it'd make your head spin.

But you know i can't, so i hope soemeone else will.

You're pissing me off, you really are because you should know better. but ok...

As i remember it it was bacterial speciation of campylobacter and the study was conducted by... Sheppard?

There were some others too.

If i could use a search engine i'd own your arse, you know that, right?

Your e-penis is larger than mine. Clearly we are all outmatched by your understanding of how Darwin arrived at his theory.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Your e-penis is larger than mine. Clearly we are all outmatched by your understanding of how Darwin arrived at his theory.

Look, you daft Soldier, you have my respect either way.

But to leave it to this, that you don't even want to discuss something like this with a fucking daft Captain who's biggest accomplishment was taking Fallujah, i don't get it.

If you are a biologist you know about the evolution of e.coli AND speciation of bacteria, right.

The dayly tracks of campylobacts, of course you know that too.

Perhaps you don't know how evolution works, perhaps you have a clue and reject it, i dunno, all i know is that the more you post regarding this subject, the more you lose my respect.

Not because you don't know shit about it, which you apparently don't, but because you keep pushing, you, Soldier, should know better than that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Observing speciation does make it a physical science..

I did not mean to imply that it being an empeirical science would make it any less.

Evolution is a physical as well as emperical science and is used as both for different purposes, say the aids or ebola virus, it's mutations and differences, and teh TOE as it stands.

Oh for heaven's sake. The experiment you don't even know well enough to cite was an mutation within E. Coli which allows it to metabolize citrate. It's a significant mutation outside the normal metabolic pathways of that particular organism. It's really cool, and it shows that mutations at work. The scientist who made the discovery believes that since it's outside the norm it might be considered a new species. If you want to nitpick (which is apparently what you want to do) there are different definitions of what constitutes a species. Normally I wouldn't split hairs over what should be a perfectly obvious statement. I should have said speciation without ambiguity of definition, like an amphibian becoming a reptile. I didn't anticipate having to prepare for a dissertation.

What was witnessed was a random mutation which cannot be reproduced on demand in the way that one can reliability reproduce the Balmer series, which you know about without googling being the expert on all science. You would of course know that the Balmer formula was empically derived.

Ok, I admit I don't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If you want to claim that this experiment and any similar makes it identical to say the work of J. Willard Gibbs then go for it.

Egads.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think you are missing the whole point John. I'm not saying that evolution is smoke and mirrors.

The context is that evolution has certain weaknesses compared to something which can be reproduced at will and reliability in a lab. That makes evolution different than nuclear physics. It doesn't make it wrong, but remember that how progress is made is by picking any model or theory apart rather than putting it on a shelf and saying "if you don't believe it, then you are a dumb fuck".

Ok, well I agree that people who actually look at evolution and what it means in a scientific sense, having reviewed the evidence and then refuse to accept it's validity is a dumb fuck. However, that isn't a very sound intellectual response with which to convince someone.

Ive tossed out an example of something that no one has satisfactorily addressed through evolution and that's how the clotting cascade came about. It's a bit long to get into why that is, but you can read up on it. Does that invalidate evolution? No, but sometimes it's reasonable to admit that not everything is understood. That does not invalidate the preponderance of evidence that exists elsewhere, no more than Einstein proved that Maxwell was wrong. Rather, Maxwell understood what could be known at the time, and Einstein added to it, improving our understanding of relativistic physics.

Don't shoot, I'm not the enemy

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I think you are missing the whole point John. I'm not saying that evolution is smoke and mirrors.

The context is that evolution has certain weaknesses compared to something which can be reproduced at will and reliability in a lab. That makes evolution different than nuclear physics. It doesn't make it wrong, but remember that how progress is made is by picking any model or theory apart rather than putting it on a shelf and saying "if you don't believe it, then you are a dumb fuck".

Ok, well I agree that people who actually look at evolution and what it means in a scientific sense, having reviewed the evidence and then refuse to accept it's validity is a dumb fuck. However, that isn't a very sound intellectual response with which to convince someone.

Ive tossed out an example of something that no one has satisfactorily addressed through evolution and that's how the clotting cascade came about. It's a bit long to get into why that is, but you can read up on it. Does that invalidate evolution? No, but sometimes it's reasonable to admit that not everything is understood. That does not invalidate the preponderance of evidence that exists elsewhere, no more than Einstein proved that Maxwell was wrong. Rather, Maxwell understood what could be known at the time, and Einstein added to it, improving our understanding of relativistic physics.

Don't shoot, I'm not the enemy

Heh, you actually think you did that, didn't you, but your drivel doesn't change one thing, and you are wrong. Besides it applies to pretty much any living organism.

I don't have to shoot you, you do that fine all by yourself, this time it's you foot though.

I'll tell you what i tell every new cadet "aim higher"... You do realise that that last part is just because it fits and i don't want you to do that, right?

So we move on to other strains, same published results, tell me, Dr Haya, are you going to even attempt on having a fruitful discussion AT ALL or are you going to try to explain your own bullshit opinion to the mases from now on?

Not that i don't enjooy it, it's good for a laugh.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Heh, you actually think you did that, didn't you, but your drivel doesn't change one thing, and you are wrong. Besides it applies to pretty much any living organism.

I don't have to shoot you, you do that fine all by yourself, this time it's you foot though.

I'll tell you what i tell every new cadet "aim higher"... You do realise that that last part is just because it fits and i don't want you to do that, right?

So we move on to other strains, same published results, tell me, Dr Haya, are you going to even attempt on having a fruitful discussion AT ALL or are you going to try to explain your own bullshit opinion to the mases from now on?

Not that i don't enjooy it, it's good for a laugh.

Heh, I'm having fun too. I admit you had me frustated, but then I realized you couldn't help it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Heh, I'm having fun too. I admit you had me frustated, but then I realized you couldn't help it.

So it's not because i brought up a strain that you didn't even seem to want to discuss?

Well,all i know is that you're one of the good guys and i'm good with that.

Twat.

 

[drebo]

Every creationist I have met wants Intelligent Design taught on an equal footing with evolution in Public School Biology class.

Yours is a fringe view. However mainstream creationists appreciate your support in weakening America.

The only "weakening" of America is your (and those like you) refusal to allow its citizens to develop rational minds.

 

[Gardener]

The only "weakening" of America is your (and those like you) refusal to allow its citizens to develop rational minds.

Yours is hardly a rational mind. Keep your religion out of science class.

 

[shira]

I don't see a problem with this bill. Allowing students to question their own beliefs as well as the beliefs put forth to them in the classroom is a good thing, regardless of the subject matter.

I, for one, don't like the idea of children being raised only learning one side of the coin. If all their learning comes from the biased party-line sycophants of either side, that's not a good thing. Discuss both sides and let the students choose for themselves.

As stated before, things do evolve...no one questions that. That man ultimately sprang forth from some protoplasmic goo is the real dispute, and not one that has been sufficiently illustrated. Faith and morals put forth by religion are not inherently bad things.

Aside from that, people should be free to think whatever they want. It's not up to you or me or anyone else to decide what people should think.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Me, too. And not both sides, ALL sides.

For example, when children are taught history, they MUST be presented with both the Western perspective and also the Middle-Eastern perspective. We really can't be sure what happened during WWII and the alleged Holocaust, for example, and children must be taught ALL SIDES, and make up their own minds about what is and isn't true.

Similarly, in health class children must be taught ALL SIDES about whether or not tobacco is harmful. Science has a view, but so too do the tobacco companies. Present both sides equally, and let the children decide.

What about the equality of the races? Yep, there are at least two sides to the question. We absolutely MUST teach children both the main-stream view that blacks are allegedly equal to whites, and also the white-supremicist view that blacks are inferior. Teach both sides equally, and let the children decide.

Evolution and intelligent design, the spherical earth and the flat earth, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, the 14-billion-year-old universe and the 4,500-year-old earth, the evil of North Korea and the godlike benevolence of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. So many differences of opinion, and all must be taught equally.

Glad I was able to get that off my chest.

 

[Moonbeam]

The only "weakening" of America is your (and those like you) refusal to allow its citizens to develop rational minds.

Bull shit. There wasn't a thing I could do about the fact you grew up irrational.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They also need to teach that the second WW doesn't explain the theory of gravity.

It is just as fucking relevant.

The theory of Abiogenesis is the best one there is, it's proficient enough to be taught as a fact as it is, there is no doubt about that.

Perhaps you should educate yourself before you spout off?

Firstly...there are many people in this world who are not nearly as smart as you are and don't understand the difference. Schools are about education...no?

Secondly...Bullshit. Abiogenesis is not fact...yet you want to teach it as such?!? Your religion is showing...the very thing you despise so much in others.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Secondly...Bullshit. Abiogenesis is not fact...yet you want to teach it as such?!?

Most religious folks, or at least the creationist types, are so hypnotized by their dogma that they are blind to the fact that they themselves believe abiogenesis. Their mythology proposes that life began in the world where once there was no life -- that "life came from non-life," as they are often wont to say. That's abiogenesis.

The difference is that scientists have the intellectual and ideological wherewithal to investigate naturalistic explanations for that proposition. Creationists, for no good reason, just want them not to bother with it. They propose that life began by magic, and not by any sensible, understandable method. No point in trying to understand the methods of God, right? Can you imagine where we'd be today -- or, more appropriately, where we wouldn't be -- if scientists were as lazy as creationists would like them to be?

And why? The only reason that a creationist would want scientists not to bother investigating something that they themselves believe to be true, it is out of the fear that scientists will acutally fill in yet another gap that they have reserved for their god a priori. If history has anything to teach us in this context, it's that their god's gaps eventually get filled by naturalistic explanations -- hence the hysterical desperation with which creationist types oppose the presentation of evolution at any and every conceiveable opportunity, and the pretzel-like mental contortions they'll endure to maintain the illusion for themselves.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Most religious folks, or at least the creationist types, are so hypnotized by their dogma that they are blind to the fact that they themselves believe abiogenesis. Their mythology proposes that life began in the world where once there was no life -- that "life came from non-life," as they are often wont to say. That's abiogenesis.

The difference is that scientists have the intellectual and ideological wherewithall to investigate naturalistic explanations for that proposition. Creationists, for no good reason, just want them not to bother with it. They propose that life began by magic, and not by any sensible, understandable method. No point in trying to understand the methods of God, right? Can you imagine where we'd be today -- or, more appropriately, where we wouldn't be -- if scientists were as lazy as creationists would like them to be?

And why? The only reason that a creationist would want scientists not to bother investigating something that they themselves believe to be true, it is out of the fear that scientists will acutally fill in yet another gap that they have reserved for their god a priori. If history has anything to teach us in this context, it's that their god's gaps eventually get filled by naturalistic explanations -- hence the hysterical desperation with which creationist types oppose the presentation of evolution at any and every conceiveable opportunity, and the pretzel-like mental contortions they'll endure to maintain the illusion for themselves.

My post has nothing to do with Creationism or what I personally want to be true vs. not true. JoS advocated teaching abiogenesis as fact when it's clearly a theory at this point in time. I don't have a problem with teaching the theory as it obviously has merit...but to teach it as fact is dishonest...and perhaps indicative in itself of the blind dogma of secularists.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

My post has nothing to do with Creationism or what I personally want to be true vs. not true. JoS advocated teaching abiogenesis as fact when it's clearly a theory at this point in time.

I see now why you didn't understand the relevance of my post. you think that theories are opposed to facts in some kind of dichotomy of confidence. Theories in a scientific context are not "guesses," as opposed to facts. Theories are the explanations about why particular sets of facts are instantiated in reality, as opposed to any alternative set of facts.

If you believe that life began in the world, by whatever means, then you believe abiogenesis is a fact. This applies to both creationists and rational people. The difference, as my post described, is that scientists want to actually work on a theory that explains the fact of abiogenesis. Creationists don't want such a theory to exist.

I don't have a problem with teaching the theory as it obviously has merit...but to teach it as fact is dishonest...and perhaps indicative in itself of the blind dogma of secularists.

The problem you should focus on is remedying yourself of your own ignorance.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I see now why you didn't understand the relevance of my post. you think that theories are opposed to facts in some kind of dichotomy of confidence. Theories in a scientific context are not "guesses," as opposed to facts. Theories are the explanations about why particular sets of facts are instantiated in reality, as opposed to any alternative set of facts.

If you believe that life began in the world, by whatever means, then you believe abiogenesis is a fact. This applies to both creationists and rational people. The difference, as my post described, is that scientists want to actually work on a theory that explains the fact of abiogenesis. Creationists don't want such a theory to exist.


The problem you should focus on is remedying yourself of your own ignorance.

OK...agree that abiogenesis is a fact by definition. But what do we have beyond that (which is my point)? From Wikipedia I understand that there is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. What do you teach in our schools as fact beyond saying that abiogenesis is a fact? Seems to me that we really don't know much in this particular area.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK...agree that abiogenesis is a fact by definition. But what do we have beyond that (which is my point)? From Wikipedia I understand that there is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.

This article presents a nice summary of the status of current research on the origin of life.

What do you teach in our schools as fact beyond saying that abiogenesis is a fact?

There are lots of thing that can be taught about abiogenesis. Particularly I think it can be a good focal point to illustrate the difference in methods between scientists and religious people in determining truths about reality. I don't have a problem with teachers being upfront about the lack of a cohesive theory for the beginning of life, but I think they should also be clear about the advantages of pursuing naturalistic explanations for real phenomena, despite the chagrin to religious anti-intellectuals.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This article presents a nice summary of the status of current research on the origin of life.


There are lots of thing that can be taught about abiogenesis. Particularly I think it can be a good focal point to illustrate the difference in methods between scientists and religious people in determining truths about reality. I don't have a problem with teachers being upfront about the lack of a cohesive theory for the beginning of life, but I think they should also be clear about the advantages of pursuing naturalistic explanations for real phenomena, despite the chagrin to religious anti-intellectuals.

Thanks for the link....interesting read. Philosophically I guess this all boils down to your definition of "spontaneous"...and therein lies the rub.

Science provides naturalistic explanations. However, you cross from science into the realm of 'religion' when you search for philosophical meaning beyond the science...whether it be to justify a Creator or the lack of one. This distinction is incredibly important and many fail to understand it.

Yes....there are many religious anti-intellectuals in the world...but on the other hand, there are many anti-religious intellectuals as well...and the funny part is, science isn't taking sides.