Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Are you making an argument that creationism is science here?

FM, as we are both obviously 'great experts' in biology, let's start from the very beginning. I will try to use as little genetics as possible - not more than necessary - to illustrate the information gap that you casually call 'results in new genetic information'.
Let's have alleles of a single gene - the colour of the eyes (classic example).
B (dominant) - for brown; and r (recessive) - for blue eyes.
The possible combination of genotypes are: BB (dark brown); Br (colorful brown); rB (colorful brown); and rr (blue).
Your claim was 'any time "shuffling" results in new genetic information'.
Can you show now an example how can you obtain this new genetic information? How can you obtain 'red eyes' for example from these B and r alleles ... without the photoshop.
Obviously you don't know (you are neither able to recognise nor to identify) what 'new genetic information' is.

Eye color doesn't result from a single gene. It comes from as many as 15 different genes.

Blue eyes are the result of lack of pigmentation and a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering would allow for red eyes just as it allows for a red sky.

The idea that light color eyes are recessive has been shown to be incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

your understanding of "ye color" is also precious. As Ive learned over the years from colleagues who actually study that stuff. Eye colr is a function of at least 6 to 16 Single Nucleotide Polymorphic genes that are "turned on or off" as per the discussions of Sean Carroll (another book I referred you to earlier0.
The unique structure of melnic color in the iris (specifically "red eye") is caused by a variation of the OCA2 gene located on chromosome 15. (A mutation of which (which is , in reality a "new gene")) is usually most responsible for the red eye association with cupromelanism or "albinism" (as well as several other related and conjoined conditions that are usually "lethal" combinations)
As far as New Genes appearing within genomes heres a paper n the subject (specifically SNP's )
http://faculty.washington.edu/wjs18/Newgenes.pdf

now Ive gotta get back to plowing the snow. Its starting to get deep around here

This made me laugh. You don't know the first thing about Biology.

In the sense that it is a technique to arrange a substance (crude human beings) in a way that benefits them--yes. As a cat-cracker is science which arranges a substance (crude oil) to benefit human beings.

Maybe technology is a better word. But in both cases there is a wager involved. It is possible that both technologies will not benefit human beings in the long run.

Fundamentalist scientists claim that science is the disinterested pursuit of truth through the exercise of curiosity. Such an extreme view fails to take account of the human needs science serves.

But Quantum Theory holds that the interested researcher is having an effect on what he is observing. The truth of his observations include himself. And cannot be peer-reviewed because there in only one machine with that amount of power.

I gather that Dan Brown has written a novel in which a weapon derived from CERN is aimed at destroying the Vatican, a metaphor of course, but not before the US President has visited, presumably to consult the Pope. (Such events are not undertaken lightly.)

The Hadron Collider is studying atomic particles under conditions it itself has generated, not nature, and with billions of dollars and thousands of well paid, high status, jobs involved it is difficult to see that the work is "disinterested". It has a PR section to sell it to us which uses taxpayer 's money, collected without choice, to persuade us to "believe" its results. The collection plates in churches are voluntary.

Science is a salvation religion offering hope for a perfected human condition here on earth and as there is no such thing as progress it entails a belief. And science, as we know it, derives from Christianity which is a creationist religion.

The many heretical cults which we spawn so readily are merely social arrangements and are neither here nor there in this argument despite fm being so keen to focus his attention on them as if his faction is the only one to have discovered their foolishness which basically results from their elites not being celibate, not being in personal poverty and not psychologically amenable to obedience to authority.

So yes--Creationism is a science. Theology is a science. But those who fear the study of sexual dynamics in group situations are never going to understand the first thing about it.

It is a very complex subject James.

I do not see that you have any other destination other that full blown eugenics as practiced by racehorse breeders.

That you hide this conclusion, perhaps even hiding it from yourselves, satisfies me that truth is not your priority.

We already have female undergraduates and graduates from Oxbridge selling their eggs on ebay. We have abortion used as a sex selection method usually discriminating against females. A few things I have heard of I am loathe to mention on a site such as this.

And we have hardly got into our stride at this early stage.

The tragic irony is that when you get the sexual licence I know you are after you won't want it. It is only flying now whilst it remains "daring". It partakes of the excitement of transgressive behaviour and as soon as such licence ceases to be transgressive it deflates like a balloon used to make a farty noise because all the fun and the wit deriving from it has vanished.

Even Darwin had residues of the wit involved although he buried it in a range of delicacies and smoke. Dawkins has nothing at all left of it.

So imagine a society without any laughter James. Sneers being all that is left. And if you are offering reductions in suffering as a trade off take a look around the world at what science can cause. It is not all warm syrup spooned into the mouth by Matron you know. Dr Manny style.

Some people think science has the capacity to return the planet to its pristine condition before life began. Not that I think that. I think there's no chance of that. Maybe a return to pre-religious conditions.

Some movie studios have invested in trying to depict that situation but none of them could get it right because the movie would be banned as unfit for a bourgeois audience if they did. The violence is acceptable.

Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

That should clear things up for you. Creationism is NOT science. I don't know why you even attempted to write a bunch of bs to claim that it is.

I covered that James.



Assertions are not science and the use of them betrays an unscientific person.

The emotional standing could hardly compensate any inability to understand what does missing information in some code (genetic or whatever) actually mean. How will some virus without nitrogen look like, for example.
Besides that, if the evolution is true (and is still in operation) the beautiful taxonomy of the flora and fauna will not be stable ... at all. Everything will evolve continuously towards something else, and would rather look like the 'declassification' of the viruses - the advent of the chaos and the fall of the third shadow.

That is the definition of science.

If you don't like it you should contact the rest of the world and try to petition to change it. I doubt they'd pay much attention to someone like you.

That post was meaningless dribble.

Using big words incorrectly doesn't make you look more intelligent.

First you have to prove that these are big words, only big words, only words ... and nothing else, and second you have to prove incorrect use (by defining a priori what 'the use of the right type' in your understanding of the world might be).
In case you don't have any interpretation of the 'fall of the third shadow' I can make some suggestions.
The fall of the first shadow is when somebody knows what he does not know.
The fall of the second shadow is when somebody does not know what he does not know.
The fall of the third shadow is when notwithstanding that somebody does not know what he does not know he has the perception of himself to be a mega-genius of seven star magnitude.
So, do you have any vague idea what does missing information in the genetic code actually mean?

First you need to answer the question I asked you about 50 times earlier but you refused to answer.

I won't entertain any of your shenanigans until you answer that question honestly. It makes no difference to me whether or not you want to pretend you're some type of expert in Biology. It would be apparent to anyone who knows basic Biology that you are not.

Says the guy that pretended to be a genius about how blue eyes are a recessive trait on a single gene.

If you mean this--



no it is not. If the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment is called science then it follows, as a matter of course, that science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

And your need to define "intellectual" and "practical" sticks out like a bandaged thumb on drill parade. One might suppose that you mean like you in intelligence (Lord preserve us), and unflinching gaze (oh yeah!!), and that your activities are going to save us all (which remains to be seen).

I think, James, that your head is in a tailspin due to a youthful gush of enthusiasm for introductory, elementary science in one of its less exacting aspects--biology, which it might be said, as it might for geology, is not science at all except in the ancient Greek sense. And that wasn't very practical now was it? Having all your art trucked out to be used as garden gnomes by rich Romans is hardly practical.

But I do understand such exuberance as I have met many young men who have been the same. They sat on the front row and took down notes for further study in the evening of what the silly old twat at the front was spouting which was, apart from eccentricities of demeanor, a regurgitation of the notes he had taken down when he had been on the front row in his turn.

I think an evolutionist would say it is a mating display. I would prefer not to be asked to elaborate on that. But it does portend a decent future income stream and there are members of our society who have, perfectly correctly, a careful eye on such things. Some of them a sa-rupa pisau kind of stare. Justin Beiber's pitch being off the agenda mostly.

The rest of the world thinks all sorts of weird and wonderful things.

Actually, I got that definition from the dictionary and you can type "science" in on Google and get many similar results. Case closed on that matter


If you're arguing that Biology and Geology are not sciences then there is truly no reasoning with you. You're a joke. lol

Oswald Spengler wrote in the early 20th century, comparing the Classical world with our Western one---



The note at * reads--" The great mass of socialists would cease to be Socialists if they could understand the Socialism of the nine or ten men who today grasp it with the full historical consequences that it involves.

Spengler goes on--



Biology and geology are not included. With our instruments the ancients would understand both subjects. Perhaps also our jurisprudence but not a chance with the others.

You might notice, James, as an obvious member of the profanum vulgus, with a craving for wide effect, that Spengler has you as sign of the decline of science. That you are actually anti-science and really just playing status games to help get you laid and, if the statistical probabilities are anything to go by, to enter a life of marital bliss in a zone designed for the income level your biological expertise eventually merits.

As I always keep the best interests of the ladies foremost in my thoughts my advice is to keep your nose clean and aim to be top dog in every class you have the misfortune to find yourself enmeshed in.

Plain, and even pug-ugly, daughters of well off and well placed men is an alternative route for those whose science has caused a decline in aesthetic tastes.

Darwin experienced such a decline as Emma aged and got fatter.

So are you saying Geology and Biology are not sciences or what?

I don't need 3 paragraphs of blather to answer one simple question.