0
   

Evolutionite Logic

 
 
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 08:09 am
https://www.discovery.org/a/1290/

Long article...

Quote:

...Since the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s, evolutionary biology has become a growth industry. This growth has resulted in the demand for more flexible methods of establishing evolutionary biology’s grandiose claims than the laborious, difficult, pedantic, and “rigorous” methods favored throughout the rest of the sciences. This demand has been met by what is now a well-developed branch of evolutionary biology known as evolutionary logic....
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 09:10 am
@gungasnake,
Bill Demski--sits on his fat biologically ignorant ass, getting paid by the biggest ID huckster site, and making belkieve that people should ven listen to him. Hes been a consistent liar and evidence ignorer and is clerly behind the Discovery Institutes " SCience and Culture Exchanges".

How comes he never gets invited to spek in any rel science conferences or how come the DI seems to limp along with its same batch of tired old losers and scientific frauds.
Read em for entertainment , there's nothing of substance. Gunga only posts such **** in the hopes that we feel he understands whats written therein (Besides "long article")
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 09:13 am
@farmerman,
PS, "EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC" is a phrase coinde pretty much by Demski hisself. Even this moron wants to sound like hes saying something amazing. YET, he will always come back to the "Life of Jesus"
Maroons abide
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 02:29 pm
@gungasnake,
Gungasnake! Holy crap man, are you still around? I would have thought your Cut and Paste keys would have worn out by now. And you provided us with another link to the Discovery Institute, how unique.

Oh, the memories it brings back... seeing your religiously inspired ignorant propaganda, trying to explain to you why it's beyond stupid, watching you ignore everything and instead respond with something even more ridiculous, finally culminating in one of your Purple Saturnian carnivorous neanderthal delusions. Yup, good times those.

Now quit yanking FM's chain. You're gonna give him an ulcer or something.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 05:42 pm
@rosborne979,
NAAAH, only one impressed with gunga IS gunga.
We could easily dip to his level, we just choose not to, one must have higher standards to maintain.

I though that the Discovery Institute, with the last kerfuffles that they lost beautifully with state governments and NCSE has "gone away" for the most part. I heard that The Amaanson's largely cut their support "hand outs" to these clowns
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 05:51 pm
I think Gunga should put his money where his mouth is, and reject all vaccinations, and 90% of the rest of modern medicine, because of its reliance on evolutionary biology. Just sayin' . . .
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2020 09:19 pm
@Setanta,
He 'll just ascribe it to "microevolution" and return to reading
all the fact -free "science" from Discovery.
Its sad that, In his life time, gunga's brain has become a large helping of sausage pudding.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 02:41 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
...watching you ignore everything and instead respond with something even more ridiculous, finally culminating in one of your Purple Saturnian carnivorous neanderthal delusions. ...


Funny you should mention that.....

Purple Age claims now showing up in regular science literature...

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQAPPXGD_s55FNNcsaMjuTSVcUU7A%3A1583223880183&source=hp&ei=SBReXsqgCIWitQWIoIawBQ&q="purple+earth+hypothesis"&oq="purple+earth+hypothesis"&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30.3282.12735..14845...1.0..0.138.1863.22j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i7i30j0i7i10i30j0j0i8i7i30.f7sKtXNJtkY&ved=0ahUKEwjK5ObH8P3nAhUFUa0KHQiQAVYQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

Flora based on retinal and not chlorophyl... Proponents naturally enough assume their own version of a purple age was quadrillions and sextillions of years ago but, in real life, it was more like a few tens of thousands. The old creatures of the earth (hominids, dinosaurs, lemurs, tarsiers, owls etc.) all had the same huge dark world/purple Dawn adapted eyes.

Typical article:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/colorscope-purple/index.html

Quote:
"The lush green planet that we call home may have actually looked purple in its earliest days, according to the "Purple Earth hypothesis."

No, this doesn't mean there were purple trees or purple grass or purple animals. It would have been before any multicellular organisms even evolved, when single-cell microorganisms dominated the planet and possibly created a purple hue that could be seen from space.

These purple organisms may have reigned supreme and existed in varying concentrations across the planet, said Shiladitya DasSarma, a microbiologist and professor at the University of Maryland. DasSarma has studied one of these microorganisms and created the Purple Earth hypothesis."


==============================

Quote:
"and possibly created a purple hue that could be seen from space."


You would think somebody would notice something like that...

http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 04:50 am
@gungasnake,
isoprene accumulation using C12 carbon assembles in all cell walls of archaea. The purple world hypotheses isnt that big a jump. Arcaea spent time developing the kinds of linkages that later all life would commonly use in ribosome structure. Stuff like ether v ester linkages from cell wall to peptides is something weve talked about frequently, whenever more serious discussions broke out.


0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2020 05:17 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Bill Demski--sits on his fat biologically ignorant ass, getting paid by the biggest ID huckster site, and making belkieve that people should ven listen to him. Hes been a consistent liar and evidence ignorer and is clerly behind the Discovery Institutes " SCience and Culture Exchanges".

How comes he never gets invited to spek in any rel science conferences or how come the DI seems to limp along with its same batch of tired old losers and scientific frauds.
Read em for entertainment , there's nothing of substance. Gunga only posts such **** in the hopes that we feel he understands whats written therein (Besides "long article")

100% Ad Hominem attack.

And it wins thumbs up by a landslide. Why the **** do I even sign in here.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2020 08:31 am
@Leadfoot,
well, for one, when someone like Demski posts something that you agree with without question, you do wish to hear from the counter thinking dont you?? Maybe not.
You have consistently entered posts that depend on the DI and many of its members to backstop your beliefs. Demski has been shown without a doubt to be a fraud . Ive quoted his posts that claim that his worldview is religion neutral and then, in another piece of writing he utters how "Science, in order to be real, must be based upon the divine nature of Jesus"


If you wish me to keep re-reminding you of his BS verbiage I can, but I think you just deny it as fact, ND THATS why you really check in,.


Of course its 100% ad hominem, I believe fully that hes a HUCKSTER and as such, needs to get what he deserves.

I routinely critique his "technical views" also.Sadly I feel overqualified to call attention to his mis-applications of biological and biochemical musings.

Remember, this is gungas BS thread and if you even give him a quck listen, youre showing an inability to be discriminating with stuff like "evidence"
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 05:48 am
@farmerman,
Holy crap farmer, you could have just pressed the thumbs down thingy.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 08:28 am
@Leadfoot,
True, but then youd miss what is really on my mind about Dr Demski,(As ell as several others at DI who try to lay claim for counter conclusions for single points of fact)

EG Dr Bwh will argue ad nauseum about how h feels that certain enzymes in trains of reactions in living organisms (lik blood clotting or digestive enzymatic reactions) are all traceable back to a"Zero point" where they had to begin as an intelligent recipe. YET he will totally ignore and possibly accept "fossil genes" in daughter species where (eg), an environmental adptation for surviving in freezing ocean temperatures will deny a daughter of hemoglobin or some other "blood" unique to a species.
He also accepts "common ancestry derived from adaptive changes in an organism".

I dont know but its fairly out there that science doesnt have to come up with any of Behe;s (or Austens)"slights of hand" to explain anything natural selection delivers or geology provides.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 04:38 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I dont know but its fairly out there that science doesnt have to come up with any of Behe;s (or Austens)"slights of hand" to explain anything natural selection delivers or geology provides.


You’ve done some incredible 'slight of hand' tricks of your own.
My favorite was your characterization of cellular biology as 'simply understood chemistry'. Wow.
I told you that was like saying that the processes in a computer are explained by the simple flow of electrons through semiconductors.

True, true, but the one who believes that he now knows the score from that, has been deceived.

I once told you that I would reconsider my opinion on abiogenesis/evolution if anyone could show a plausible Natural origin for just the mitochondria. My guess is that you would respond with something like “That's only the chemical reaction of oxidative phosphorylation. That was figured out by so and so back in .....”.

You would be telling the truth, but it would ignore at least four separate virtually miraculous stages in the process. True, there are no violations of physics involved, but it’s about as likely to be an accident as this network we are communicating on. And that’s just one tiny part of the cell. Doesn’t even get into the sexy bits.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 05:48 pm
@Leadfoot,
I dont think Ive said anything of the kind re "Phosphorylation"
And, wat I said was that cbiology was really applied Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (Two very similar but divergent diciplines that see reactions for several poles of research)

What you DONT believe , I find , is most grown out of misunderstanding or a fairly shallow understanding of what these disciplines actually represent.
Ive often said that, I do have severl really sharp Applied IT guys who have taken our equations and turned them into programs used in such things as "RockLogger et al". Each of the several guys and ladies who worked out our codes were FIRST scientists in the fields , then they became coders or programmers or whatever they call themselves. THEY UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCES THEY WORK WITHIN. They arent primarily programmers who, like the carpenter, see everything as a nail..


In case youre not familiar with Dr Austen. hes made a lifes work "futzing for Jesus" writing about Pleiochroic "halos" in igneous rock micas, where polonium laves a rad halo, and because the halo is a function of a radioactive element with a very short half life, (Polonium), and a decay product (the "halo"), the rock cannot possibly be indicative of a very old igneous rock.

What Austen forgets is that all the Polonium (the specific isotopes) are daughter products o URANIUM then RADON. Uranium has a half life that caan asily leave Po "halos" because its own half life is sufficiently long to generate isotop daughters hundreds of millions of yers old.
I xpect someone like gunga to be wowed by that kind of thinking but I wonder why the Dicovery Institute tries to foist that kind of frudulent thinking on a world of interested people.

ILL TELL YOU WHY
I think the Discovery Institute is hoping tht most all of their"Students" are really stupid and will believe anything as long as it sounds sciientific enough

SO, as weve said many times , if not to you but to Ll, Jacob,(others I forget) tht I am under NO obligations here to make you believe anything I say. So just dont bother me with your beliefs and call them science or make your beliefs sound scientific is you dont want me to take shots at them.
I G.A.S. whether you believe me or not, All I can say is tht, so far, the science works perfectly for the world of science, and that Drs Demski, Behe, Austen etc have all been argued to the floor quite easily .
Dr Behe , in his famous testimony at th Dover Pa case, sounded like a total fool and gave the judge enough ammo for Judge Jones to use the phrase "breathtaking Inanity" when describing the science presented in defense of ID in science class.

Teach, Preach, and live with ID as a basis of your beliefs , just pleeeeeeze dont try to make believe that its real science cause it isnt.

Stay well, stay outta crowds, stay 6' from coughing people and buy stocks on a dollar coast average cause the ride aint over.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 05:40 am
@farmerman,
Bad day?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 05:55 am
@Leadfoot,
who, me ? rarely ever.

Are you gonna ignore again?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 12:08 pm
@farmerman,
That was my line, the first time you ignored this was years ago. Here it is again. Are you going to accept the challenge or not?
Quote:
Leadfoot quote: (again)
I once told you that I would reconsider my opinion on abiogenesis/evolution if anyone could show a plausible Natural origin for just the mitochondria.


And I hope you aren’t pretending that your previous post addressed it.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 02:39 pm
@Leadfoot,
I never ignored it. You have a habit of doing the ignoring so that Ive grown tired of providing you any further information cause youll just pass it by.

What do Mitochondria supply to a cell?
do mitochondria have sufficient DNA to survive a free living
I there any evidence that this condition has ever been different ?(i there any evidence that mitochondria were free living?)
shape are mitochondria in a eukaryotic cell?
Is subsumation a known cellular occurence in prokatyotes as well as eukaryotes.
Can you give names of any species where the mitochondria do not seem matched to the somatic cells?

PPS youre taking credit for something I mentioned several years ago an youve picked up on it . When will you find the hidden gem in convergent evolution?



Get a book on evolution of the eukaryotic cell rather than just whining. (there are genetic "fossils" available for our consideration (although the method of acquisition is admittedly unknown at this point and it certainly aint my field of endeavor.

You wont do anything except call names that Im insulting you or that I am rude to your inquiries.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 02:44 pm
@farmerman,
PS, I started answering your recent comment by diapraging Bill Demski. Rather than sticking up for HIM, you attack me for attacking him. whose really playing the adhominem card??

My feeling is that when you post something that is a bit from someone else you avoid providing your own understanding of what that"bit" represents (which allows me to respond with why Ive so criticized him.

 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolutionite Logic
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2020 at 12:21:01