Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

an interesting discussion with "Anthony". Although his facts are QUITE A bit askew regarding genetics and the fossil record, his quote from LEwontin is accurate.


BUT its merely another example of what creative quote mining is about

Not letting a "Divine Foot In the Door" was discussed in great length in the post Dover book " INTELLIGENT THOUGHT. SOme of the conclusions in there include the fact that ID requires the "researcher" to default back to an unavoidable nodal point, that being a "UNIVERSAL MIND", which initiates all life. This would cut short any reasonable and in-depth research because the point of origins has been pre ordained. Thats really not science. IF, on the other hand, science discovers some undeniable piece of evidence that leads to ID conclusions, evidence that can be viewed by all, and tested and falsified (etc etc). Thatd be a whole nother string on your lobster trap. That has not occured ONCE in all these years. Its not that scientists are afraid of seeing or are purposely avoiding ID . SCientists are driven by their own ignorance and are free (as long as funding holdes out) to pursue in whatever direction they seek to answer the questions on the table. ID does not allow that, it stultifies any pursuits of real truths by always lurking in the background ready to spring up anmd end your study (Sorta like what Behe has always attempted to do-he pulls us up short by saying that "beyond this point lies the Intelligent designer". HIS OWN CODEWORDS of "Irreducible complexity" are just that. AT That point we must give up an accept Gods intervention (even though, in his testimony, he denied that a "God", by name, is actually needed ). He did surround his Intelligent Being with enough trappings of the supernatural deity that it was hard to avoid the comparison in a line-up.

Lewontin is in that same mode. He has reminded usthat stopping short, by inserting a deity as the causitive element is silly and unneeded. However, should some new post doc biochemist in a lab at Sloane Kettering or a new paleontologist at the ACademy of SCience find an elephant fossil in the early Cambrian, then we can talk about other possibilities that are BORNE OF EVIDENCE not just superstition.

Ya know Darwin himself toyed with ID as a major causitive factor in all his years of work and notebook and experiments. He was ready (until much of his data came in from other experts) to accept John Rays'The Wisdom of God as Manifested in the Creation or Paleys later major work of Natural Theology...
Then, as all the data from Gould and others showed his many lkiving species of Patagonia and the Galapogos were actually related, he began to doubt Ray mainly because , as Darwin concluded, such speciation that occurs in such relatively short geographical distances would of necessity be an example of "Special-at -a-point CREATION" Darwin tried to figure out how this would occur

1If the animals were related to those on the South AMerican mainland over 600 miles East, this would be an example of modification by time and distance and not special creation

2 Evidence abounded for really bad designs in nature. (Darwin was even more aligned with this argument against Creationism [or its key nodal point of a Universal Intelligence]).

Frank Sulloway wrote an unauthorized biogrphy of Darwins rejection of Intelligent Design and Creationism, in a little magazine article that was entitledWhy Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design

You're both trying to bully me off the threads. Neither of the last two posts have any meaning.

If the sexual question wasn't in play you wouldn't even be posting at all. When did you join a thread about radioactivity, diffraction gratings, electrical capacitance, taxonomy, photosynthesis, incline planes, protoplasm or anything like that.

Only a few specialists would interest themselves in evolution if the sexual question was not involved. It's the science of the standing prick you lot are on about. Nothing else. And you are in denial on the matter. You belong on Facebook with all the other tweeters.

The last two posts prove you have no science. Show them to a scientist--he will tell you the same.

I mean to say---good Lord--coming on a debate thread and bragging about putting another participant on Ignore as if it's an admirable aspect of the scientific method when it's the precise opposite. When you can't peer review switch to Ignore or ignorant and self-evidently stupid blurting. One complete, unremitting pile of shite.

I forget who made the comment but Id like to reprise it a bit because Im watching the "ID science literature" and, ever since Dover, its been fairly quiet.

The only bump in the road Ive found was when the Institute for Creation Science conned the Geological SOciety of America's 2010 meeting into taking a "quasi Creationist field trip"
What actually happened was that the meeting program committee got a proposal for a field trip that wanted to view the "fluvial; and marine deposits visible in the Grand Canyon section" When the field trip was run, it turned out to be a skree for "EVIDENCE FOR THE FLOOD". The attendees were rightfully pissed at being confidenced by the Steve Austens of the world.
It took an article in Earth magazine to set it strait by example.
(It turns out that the "Flood" section that Dr AUsten was presenting , had some quite distinctive internal sand deposits within the stratigraphic section. These sand deposits were clearly desert DUNES.) Hard for a believer in a universal flood to have dry land in the middle. Dr AUsten withdrew and weve not heard from him lately.

However, all that good ID science we were promised back before 9/11 just has never materialized. Many of us in the rock nocker field have been waiting for all these announced papers that "Clearly were going to show that life appeared abruptly and without earlier forms", or that genetics clearly shows the evidence of an Intelligence(As we learn more about the genome , we see its exactly the opposite, its trial and error writ large)

I think that, personally, the ID crowd is like the movie industry where we get these really neat looking trailers that promise the greatest entertainment on the planet and then the movies are a dud. Same thing with these guys except they dont even produce one or two papers . I think theyve promised waay more than they can deliver. Really, all this **** like what Anthony has been quoting is so old that it collects Social Security (sorry CI). There is nothing new from these guys. (I SAY THAT WITH A BIT OF AUTHORITY iM WATCHING FOR IT AS A "HOBBY")

Meanwile, back at the ranch, science has made a breathtaking series of discoveries recently on the functionality and interrelationship between epigenetic "junk" DNA , "junk" DNA in the chromosmes themsel;ves , and the actual coding portion of DNA. If looked at really critically, one can see the relationship and temporal development of RNA and DNA and "Switches" .(It answers the question of "Where the **** did uracil come from ?"

Remember the thread about "evolution without DNA"? seems that the function of DNA and all, is like what Gould said all along. "Its merely a bookkeeping service"

That is false because many religious people have been involved in research. Still are. And before there was any evolution teaching in schools. A very great deal of research.

And what does "reasonable" and "in-depth" mean except a braggart's claim to superior excellence by defining what both terms mean to his own highly solipsistic satisfaction. He hasn't even the wit to leave those terms out to avoid this obvious interpretation. They are wasted words. Research is research. "In-depth" disappears down a black hole if you push it a bit. A lot and you might go nuts as I have seen a couple of guys do and they didn't go all that deep.

Reasonable is plain silly. Only someone who thinks his audience stupid would pad his incorrect sentences out with such drivel.



fm knows very well that there is not a hope in hell of anybody ever doing that. And yet he feels free to engage us with such utter nonsense. He couldn't even imagine a social world, which is the real subject, where evidence was produced that was rigorously tested and not falsified. By choosing to use "falsified" he has pre-judged the issue. It's in his soul. He can't help it. And justifiably too because he knows he's right. If we did some in-depth and reasonable research on why he is right we get stuck on Ignore like the jolly old peer-review fanatics bolt for, like rabbits down their holes, whenever things get too much for their lily-livered sensitivities to the Yangy-ying question which, despite the science being in its infancy, has sent even the Postmaster General reaching for the telephone.

I saw that discovery that junk DNA isn't actually junk at all. Sometimes you forget we are still learning.

I expect that at some point we will understand that if god is an intelligent designer his purpose must have been to hide all evidence that he designed at all. Hopefully his fans will then respect his wishes and stop giving him credit for something he clearly doesn't want credit for.

An attempt at a comeback line by one Creationist to the NCSE news was that "we knew all along that epigenetic DNA was useful--"


why?

WAIT FOR IT









"CAuse God dont make no junk"



That was spoken as "honestly" as Creationists are able even after looking at evidence in the fossil record and at the weird variability of living cousins --which all testifies to the contrary

That's a bit tame compared to some of the things I have heard atheists say.

There's nothing like the Yangy-ying question for getting these hard-bitten scientifics scuttering off down the road in a cloud of dust singing I Did It My Waaaaaaaaaaaay.

how close to god are you

Same as you.

I think your cheese dun slid off your cracker spendi

Mature American wit eh? Did you copy and paste it or had you committed it to memory?

Its merely a
para" phrase from literature. It does describe your conditions though.

Not in my experience. You're laying your fantasies on me old boy. Would you like me to lay some of mine on you which you have granted me permission to unless you only accept you laying yours on people and them being disqualified from answering back.

You're a dictator type fm and the only thing holding you back is lack of talent.

You should go in pubs more and pit yourself against all comers. You've been selecting your audiences for far too long.

Do you find a pub education to be more creditable than industrialized education?

By a very long distance.

Well at least you are being honest about where you received your education.

My wording was incorrect, I meant an institutionalized education.

Oh that's a goodie.