Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,679 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,102,535
Pageviews Today: 1,456,699Threads Today: 332Posts Today: 5,270
10:10 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 09:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
In this paper, "Modern Synthesis", refers to the commonly taught evolutionary mechanism of incremental Random Mutations + Natural Selection as the primary factor for creating all of biodiversity.

Yes this is the dogma that you've been called 'stupid' and 'ignorant' for not believing in for decades.

Mainstream Science is finally being forced to admit that it was a failed assumption. And fanatical Evos are kicking and screaming.

What 'Soft Inheritance' refers to is Epigenetics. These are developmental changes in an individual organism that gets inherited by its offspring, that do not include genetic variations in the underlying DNA.


[link to www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com]

Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis

This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated
evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the
idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic
variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by
epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary
changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to
saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the
Modern Synthesis
, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data
that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis
no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.



----------


There are many more papers supporting this and scientists adopting this viewpoint as well. Look into the Altenberg 16 conference.


Yes I know all of you religious evos will argue that this doesn't change the fact that your sacred non-intelligently designed, naturalistic Evolution is still the only truth.

That is expected. You have more faith than any theist on Earth.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 09:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Stuart Newman - Professor of Cell Biology

Altenberg 16 Attendee



[link to www.youtube.com]


[link to www.youtube.com]


[link to www.youtube.com]


[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29665863
Ireland
12/11/2012 09:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Okay, look... I'll admit vast ignorance in this area.
Reading even a small portion of that stuff just makes my brain melt out my ears...

You need a background in the material being refuted I think, before you can understand the refutation properly.

In laymans terms... what the hell did I just read?

I mean, I'm interested because the whole evolution shtick just doesn't "feel" right but "feelings" don't prove nothing right?

So dude, if you can... in plain english for (self admitted) dummies like me.
andreidita

User ID: 4637432
Romania
12/11/2012 09:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
science finally starts to reach the realm of abstract pure thinking, and the dogmas underlying it until now start to be revealed.

the purposeful intelligence of the cosmos/nature/god/whatever label you prefer will become a manifest feature of reality in the perception of awakening souls from the deep slumber of the dark ages of reason

hf
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 09:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Ain't that cute.

You just discovered the epigenetics people, who were tearing down the hallways shouting "Natural Selection is dead!" about five years back.

Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well. And despite the usual old stogies, the modern synthesis proved happy enough to give epi a place at the table. Just not the head of the table like they'd hoped.

What's next? You gonna discover horizontal gene transfer?
andreidita

User ID: 4637432
Romania
12/11/2012 09:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Ain't that cute.

You just discovered the epigenetics people, who were tearing down the hallways shouting "Natural Selection is dead!" about five years back.

Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well. And despite the usual old stogies, the modern synthesis proved happy enough to give epi a place at the table. Just not the head of the table like they'd hoped.

What's next? You gonna discover horizontal gene transfer?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


changing the focus a little,
would you be kind enough to share three great truths you found during your life journey?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 09:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Okay, look... I'll admit vast ignorance in this area.
Reading even a small portion of that stuff just makes my brain melt out my ears...

You need a background in the material being refuted I think, before you can understand the refutation properly.

In laymans terms... what the hell did I just read?

I mean, I'm interested because the whole evolution shtick just doesn't "feel" right but "feelings" don't prove nothing right?

So dude, if you can... in plain english for (self admitted) dummies like me.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29665863


Epigenetics is actually pretty cool stuff.

Let's get concrete with an example first. Plant a human fetus in the womb of a gila monster. Do you get a half-human, half lizard? No. You get a dead baby and a very sick lizard.

Epigenetics is (roughly!) the observation that some of the blueprint for that marvelous complicated boostrapping task of building a human being from another human being is contained not in the fertilized egg, but in the environment around it.

It is almost an Ouroboros of an idea. Significant moments in the unfolding construction of the fetus are signaled for not from within the genetic code of the fetus, but by the surrounding chemistry of the womb. Which are in turn carried as excess baggage in the genetics of the baby, to be claimed when it is of age to have children itself.

Another way to look at it is as a second code, a sort of oral history of the flesh; information that is carried only by a shape of a protein formed by being around a previous protein that was also folded that way.

Nothing that new, really. We also carry around alien DNA in the form of our mitochondria, and in our complement of intestinal flora and fauna (many of which are transmitted not via genetics or blood but later, as a form of cross-contamination between mother and child, or even between family and child).

It may take a village to raise a child, but it also takes a whole team of different sources of developmental and phenotypical information.



And I am happy that science is busy discovering more and more new things it didn't know before, and happily throwing itself into the questions. Unlike what the OP apparently wishes, which is to turn our backs on all Creation with a grumpy "guess it will have to be a mystery, then."
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 09:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Okay, look... I'll admit vast ignorance in this area.
Reading even a small portion of that stuff just makes my brain melt out my ears...

You need a background in the material being refuted I think, before you can understand the refutation properly.

In laymans terms... what the hell did I just read?

I mean, I'm interested because the whole evolution shtick just doesn't "feel" right but "feelings" don't prove nothing right?

So dude, if you can... in plain english for (self admitted) dummies like me.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29665863


Hi, sorry, I tried to give some background in the beginning but it was brief.

I am no scientist, but I have been studying this subject extensively for awhile, and I base my views on the data in the scientific literature.

Basically since the 1980's, Evolutionists have been selling the public, AS FACT, that all living creatures have been formed by a gradual process of Random Mutations and Natural Selection.

That Modern Synthesis, or Neo-Darwinism goes like this:

Random DNA mutations are inherited in each organism.
Some mutations will confer a fitness(survival) advantage to the host and its offspring.
Natural Selection will favor the advantaged organism and its progeny, and gradually weed out the rest of the population.
This process will allow more beneficial mutations to become fixated in the population, eventually bringing us from a single celled organism, to a human being over the course of 4 billion years.

"Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued." - Wiki

Evolutionists believe Natural Selection, acting on a series of tiny random incremental changes, is primarily responsible for shaping the body plans (skeletons, organs, tissues, circulatory systems) of all living creatures.

It's basically the Richard Dawkinsian "Blind Watchmaker" theory, that evos have been saying is an irrefutable fact for years.

So biology is now pushing this belief aside, and realizing that Random Mutation + Natural Selection is not an adequate explanation for biodiversity at all.

They are finding that organisms are showing rapid developments in direct response to environment stimuli, which have nothing to do with random DNA changes. This is referred to as Plasticity.

As well as many other developmental changes (not DNA variation)

----------------------


Anyways, though I think Evolution is complete nonsense, my argument here is not that this disproves Evolution, but that Fanatical Evolutionists, for the most part, are completely full of crap. They've been preaching this central dogma for decades, calling people stupid for not believing in it, explaining it over and over again like it is the most matter-of-fact truth in the world.

Evolution is Religion. No matter how much the data changes, they will cling to their conclusion that life is one big culled genetic accident.


Hope that helps.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 09:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


And all the while your stupid religion doesn't explain the advent of a novel protein, much less genetic material to begin with.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 09:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Ain't that cute.

You just discovered the epigenetics people, who were tearing down the hallways shouting "Natural Selection is dead!" about five years back.

Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well. And despite the usual old stogies, the modern synthesis proved happy enough to give epi a place at the table. Just not the head of the table like they'd hoped.

What's next? You gonna discover horizontal gene transfer?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


changing the focus a little,
would you be kind enough to share three great truths you found during your life journey?
 Quoting: andreidita


Always dress towards the live end.

Never trust the circuit is really dead.

Don't stand in front of the foldbacks when there's a wild muso in the room.



I'm an engineer, not a philosopher. I've spent more than a few hours in shrines and temples, and I embrace awe -- and science to me is the exact opposite of any loss of awe at the miraculous. I find it inspiring and humbling and magical and amazing and, of course, ever-surprising.

(To me, mainstream religions are the opposite of awe. Instead of mystery, what they seem to describe is a bearded guy with a black Metallica t-shirt pushing the scenery in from off stage. I think I'd like my mystery to be more, well, mysterious.)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28817028
United States
12/11/2012 10:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
I just wasted an entire semester in physical anthropology. It was the most painful class I have ever taken because it was such a load of bullshit. The teacher was a liberal tard who looks, ironically, like a fucking neanderthal. The stupid bitch claims she is a scientist yet she takes her bullshit evolutionary theory as fact rather than as theory like all other scientists do when it comes to their line of work.

Just for the record, I don't buy the biblical story of creation either.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 10:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


And all the while your stupid religion doesn't explain the advent of a novel protein, much less genetic material to begin with.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


You do realize that epi is a hell of a lot more conservative than DNA, right?

Actually, there's a lot of interlink. At the most obvious; there are wonderful novel structures which would confer a fitness advantage but there's no damned way to fit them in the womb!

(Case in point -- us. We are a bunch of compromises and near-misses circling around how far you can push the whole process of birth and natal development without dooming your species entirely.)

Anyhow. If you are seeing a god of the gaps in epigenetics, I'm sure not seeing him there. I'd look elsewhere for your required moments of special creation. Heck...I'd stick with genetics, personally, because in the other thread you already hand-waved ANY code for ANY novel structure as being magically pre-programmed to appear whenever desired by the invisible designer.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 10:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Epigenetics is (roughly!) the observation that some of the blueprint for that marvelous complicated boostrapping task of building a human being from another human being is contained not in the fertilized egg, but in the environment around it.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Internal processes such as Cell differentiation, and DNA Methylation are pretty central to development.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17589856
United Kingdom
12/11/2012 10:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
op got owned itt
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 10:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
I just wasted an entire semester in physical anthropology. It was the most painful class I have ever taken because it was such a load of bullshit. The teacher was a liberal tard who looks, ironically, like a fucking neanderthal. The stupid bitch claims she is a scientist yet she takes her bullshit evolutionary theory as fact rather than as theory like all other scientists do when it comes to their line of work.

Just for the record, I don't buy the biblical story of creation either.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28817028


Heh. You should have taken my first one.

Co-taught. One phys-anth, one soc-anth. Boy, did the fur fly! Do NOT mention Margaret Mead in that room!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28817028
United States
12/11/2012 10:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
I just wasted an entire semester in physical anthropology. It was the most painful class I have ever taken because it was such a load of bullshit. The teacher was a liberal tard who looks, ironically, like a fucking neanderthal. The stupid bitch claims she is a scientist yet she takes her bullshit evolutionary theory as fact rather than as theory like all other scientists do when it comes to their line of work.

Just for the record, I don't buy the biblical story of creation either.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28817028


Heh. You should have taken my first one.

Co-taught. One phys-anth, one soc-anth. Boy, did the fur fly! Do NOT mention Margaret Mead in that room!
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


I would have had an aneurysm.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25595289
United States
12/11/2012 10:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
yeah...its got holes...big deal. We all know we came from Gods who came down from the sky and made us....the Aliens.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 10:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


And all the while your stupid religion doesn't explain the advent of a novel protein, much less genetic material to begin with.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


You do realize that epi is a hell of a lot more conservative than DNA, right?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


I'm not proposing epigenetics as a replacement for DNA mutations to explain unguided naturalistic Evolution. I am not of the fanatical religion that believes cellular anatomy, nervous systems, or human consciousness is the result of an incrementally culled genetic accidents. I am not that gullible.

What epigenetics helps to show us is that, yes, organisms are genetically and phenotypically more well equipped with adaptive abilities than previously thought. It is a fulfilled prediction of design, and the gap of natural accidents ever widens.

and, scientifically speaking, the origin of body plans and biodiversity actually is a mystery, full of what amounts to little more than educated guesses. (maybe it was this mechanism, maybe it was that mechanism) It helps tear down the facade of certainty that fanatics like you have been keeping propped up for decades.

I wonder if you and your cohorts could ever admit that your beliefs are far more philosophically motivated than scientific. It just all had to be a natural accident, didn't it?

Anyhow. If you are seeing a god of the gaps in epigenetics, I'm sure not seeing him there. I'd look elsewhere for your required moments of special creation. Heck...
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Like anyone expects a fanatical evo to consider that he wasn't a genetic accident, no matter how much evidence of design is heaped upon him.

I'd stick with genetics, personally, because in the other thread you already hand-waved ANY code for ANY novel structure as being magically pre-programmed to appear whenever desired by the invisible designer.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


LOL, as opposed to your hand-waving about superstitious magical mutations that can not produce a single novel protein, yet must have been creative enough to fill every ecological niche on earth with the most fantastically designed creatures imaginable.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 10:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
I just wasted an entire semester in physical anthropology. It was the most painful class I have ever taken because it was such a load of bullshit. The teacher was a liberal tard who looks, ironically, like a fucking neanderthal. The stupid bitch claims she is a scientist yet she takes her bullshit evolutionary theory as fact rather than as theory like all other scientists do when it comes to their line of work.

Just for the record, I don't buy the biblical story of creation either.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28817028


Evolution takes a mountain of faith.

Creation takes a mustard seed.


[link to www.youtube.com]

Evos really believe this machinery accidentally fell into place from a precursor.

We will look back on this age of Scientism as one of the largest super-religions of all time.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28185728
United States
12/11/2012 10:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
I just wasted an entire semester in physical anthropology. It was the most painful class I have ever taken because it was such a load of bullshit. The teacher was a liberal tard who looks, ironically, like a fucking neanderthal. The stupid bitch claims she is a scientist yet she takes her bullshit evolutionary theory as fact rather than as theory like all other scientists do when it comes to their line of work.

Just for the record, I don't buy the biblical story of creation either.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28817028


I just spent a semester studying biology and experienced the same evolutionist dogma. I also have the notion that both theories are wrong and the truth of truth falls somewhere in between.
andreidita

User ID: 4637432
Romania
12/11/2012 10:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
I'm an engineer, not a philosopher. I've spent more than a few hours in shrines and temples, and I embrace awe -- and science to me is the exact opposite of any loss of awe at the miraculous. I find it inspiring and humbling and magical and amazing and, of course, ever-surprising.

(To me, mainstream religions are the opposite of awe. Instead of mystery, what they seem to describe is a bearded guy with a black Metallica t-shirt pushing the scenery in from off stage. I think I'd like my mystery to be more, well, mysterious.)
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


ok, now i see what's your perspective (which i also share)

then again it so easy to lose that awe, when you start to believe that the 'truth' is out there, in the sense that what 'scientists say is true'

and i am not implying anything about you, just want to point that mainstream religions and mainstream science have the same problem :)

the attitude towards truth, life, and awe matters, not the specific byproduct of that process which ends as a dogmatic truth in the end, in the eyes of the ones who forgot the mystery.

discussions about genetics and evolution have a conceptual framework which is so outdated.
the invention of computers introduced a fundamental distinction for understanding how the universe works: software/hardware.
and applying this to genetics it is obvious that DNA holds encoded in it the software component of the living being. while the chemical structure of DNA is only a description of the hardware which holds the software.
the question is how we could understand the programming code, at what level the software is manifested in the hardware (and classical understanding of chemistry is of no use for this)
i could go on and on, but i'll stop :)
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 11:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
and, scientifically speaking, the origin of body plans and biodiversity actually is a mystery, full of what amounts to little more than educated guesses. (maybe it was this mechanism, maybe it was that mechanism) It helps tear down the facade of certainty that fanatics like you have been keeping propped up for decades.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Still not sure what you mean by this. What is it that you are describing with the term "body plan," and what part of that do you believe lacks all explanation?


I wonder if you and your cohorts could ever admit that your beliefs are far more philosophically motivated than scientific. It just all had to be a natural accident, didn't it?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Missed my Galileo quote?

I'll put it another way. I just caught a production of "Nutcracker" recently. I found the singing lacking. Completely lacking, in fact. Is that a legitimate complaint? I also listened to an amazing children's choir not long ago, but they didn't do as much as a single arabeseque. Is that a legitimate complaint?

Yes, perhaps one of the pieces they sung would have been more interesting, would have made something wonderful had they danced as well as sung. But dancing was neither their purpose nor the expectation, and you can't criticize their performance for not including it.

Science IS naturalism. It is a priori. You can't go into science saying "If we can't find an answer, then we'll just sing." Or fall back on magic, gods, aliens, or whatever.

The task of discovering a naturalistic explanation is the task of discovering a naturalistic explanation. Full stop. It is as silly to say that they should include something that is completely outside of that brief, as it is to ask why the prima ballerina refuses to demonstrate whether she is a soprano or a mezzo.

As an individual -- as an amateur, an interested observer, a student, or a practicing scientist -- you can have whatever philosophical stance you want. If you wish the believe the entire universe is an illusion, that is fine. But when you apply for that grant, do that research, tabulate that data, write that paper, respond to reviews, you do so within the frame of the field you have chosen.

The BEST you can say for suddenly breaking out into song when you find your elevation is insufficient to properly perform a move is that it is cowardice. You are attempting to cover your own insufficiency by suddenly pretending it was all about something else.

So, yes, it is a philosophical stance. There is no half-a-science; just science....and bad science.



Oh, and why is it Creationists pull this card? Ever? Since they were the ones who took a PHILOSOPHICAL debate and attempted to fight it out on the terms of science instead?

They are like rowdy footballers crashing a chess club. They want the panache of being able to beat anyone at their own game, so they cheat, tip over boards...fooling no-one but themselves as to their achievement of that victory.



LOL, as opposed to your hand-waving about superstitious magical mutations that can not produce a single novel protein, yet must have been creative enough to fill every ecological niche on earth with the most fantastically designed creatures imaginable.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Would this be the same processes you yourself cited (err...mentioned) as having created a protein with novel application?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 11:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
OP,

WHAT IS YOUR THEORY?

Stop bafflegabbing about what you don't agree with. I want to hear from you any idea of when these acts of special creation occurred, how they explain the fossil record, what you have learned about the designer (I am tempted by the J.B.S. Haldane quote here!)

I'd also be intrigued to learn of your general framework; both timeline and necessity of a designer for this planet/system/galaxy/universe, and some understanding for how deeply and how carefully mainstream science is entrenched in creating the lies you ascribe to them; how aware they are of this, how the awareness is compartmentalized, how the necessary awareness is taught and used.

I don't like boxes, philosophically, but if you can't be bothered to describe any of your own philosophy, I'd be satisfied if you could even identity which "box" it is closest to. YEC, I am thinking, because your requirement for the entire fossil record to be wrong and/or falsified is incompatible with an old Earth and the general tenor of theistic evolution.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/12/2012 08:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Science IS naturalism. It is a priori. You can't go into science saying "If we can't find an answer, then we'll just sing." Or fall back on magic, gods, aliens, or whatever.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Oh the irony. Yet you fall back on nature-defying superstitious trans formative events that must be true because they don't invoke intelligence. Your "dumb nature of the gaps" ever widens.

You believe populations somehow have the capacity to gradually morph into completely different body plans. I wonder if you'll ever realize your own magical thinking.

You see sand randomly collecting on the beach, and swear that in a million years it will have naturally formed a sand castle.

"Science IS naturalism" How equivocal. What does that even mean? Science only uses naturalistic methodology? Science can only be used to infer natural causes?

The latter being silly, as archeology and forensics and SETI have been around for quite some time. The methodology for inferring an intelligent cause is well established.



The task of discovering a naturalistic explanation is the task of discovering a naturalistic explanation. Full stop.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



LOL. Thank you for being honest here. You are interested in ONE conclusion. Any evidence leading away from that conclusion will be promptly ignored. You are NOT motivated by the science, but by your philosophy and religion.


So, yes, it is a philosophical stance. There is no half-a-science; just science....and bad science.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


How profound. I would take you as more of an authority if you hadn't already demonstrated how philosophically and religiously motivated you are.


LOL, as opposed to your hand-waving about superstitious magical mutations that can not produce a single novel protein, yet must have been creative enough to fill every ecological niche on earth with the most fantastically designed creatures imaginable.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Would this be the same processes you yourself cited (err...mentioned) as having created a protein with novel application?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


"novel applications" Oh, the equivocation. Yea, if I chop my arms off at the shoulders than I can squeeze through tighter spaces. That would be a novel application, too.

There's a big diff between novel phenotypical effects, and truly novel information that provided for it. Knocking a couple amino acid out of Esterase is not the creation of any new novel function at all.
zvezda 1

User ID: 29699208
Bulgaria
12/12/2012 08:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
[link to www.ustream.tv]

Where does the evidence lead
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/12/2012 09:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
OP,

WHAT IS YOUR THEORY?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


That life itself and biodiversity can not be explained by stochastic, undetermined, dumb, aimless, non-intelligent forces and processes.

This is probably the most scientifically accurate stance one could make. Every facet of genetics and microbiology supports this conclusion.

It is religion that can not accept it. There just has to be an evolutionary explanation. We'll figure it out eventually! ... As the abyss ever widens before you. No, the gaps are getting smaller! I swear!

Stop bafflegabbing about what you don't agree with. I want to hear from you any idea of when these acts of special creation occurred, how they explain the fossil record, what you have learned about the designer
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Love the double standard. Why don't you explain exactly how DNA and the living cell came into existence. You have no more power to explain evolutionary creation than I do of intelligent creation. Mine requires faith, while yours has already been proven absurd.

As for an idea I have. Creatures were genetically designed by a series of template forms.

Perhaps larger, more advanced lifeforms were iterated off of base designs we find in Cambria. This would explain why we find the same level of complexity echoed in Cambrian life as we do in Cenozoic. The complexity appearing out of nowhere in the record of course.

The fossil record actually makes a lot of sense from a design perspective. Most notably the gaps between forms which we don't see as gaps at all. We don't expect a gradual transition between any major structure of body plan. We expect a small series of designs that work very well, with no evidence of any kind of "evolutionary meandering" into dead-end designs. (ironically, it is the evolutionist who is constantly appealing to gaps)

Also this evo myth that Design can not make predictions is just hilarious. I can only imagine how much faster the field of genetics may have advanced if we were actively seeking out function from the perspective of the cell being masterfully designed. (Instead of all the bozos constantly ranting about things being leftover evolutionary junk and noise.)


and some understanding for how deeply and how carefully mainstream science is entrenched in creating the lies you ascribe to them; how aware they are of this, how the awareness is compartmentalized, how the necessary awareness is taught and used.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



I don't think anyone is consciously lying (maybe a few), just demonstrating the same kind of religious zealotry that you yourself often demonstrate. Like you indicated above, you will ONLY entertain the evolutionary conclusion. Need I say more?

All scientists teaching and researching today, were also intellectually trained for years that this is the ONLY conclusion allowed.

Their data is good. It is the infamous equivocation that the word "Evolution" has adapted. The term is thrown around in scientific literature as little more than "change over time"


I don't like boxes, philosophically, but if you can't be bothered to describe any of your own philosophy, I'd be satisfied if you could even identity which "box" it is closest to. YEC, I am thinking, because your requirement for the entire fossil record to be wrong and/or falsified is incompatible with an old Earth and the general tenor of theistic evolution.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


I believe all was created by the God of the Bible.

I have no stance on the age of the Earth at this moment. I am open to young or old. Obviously I do not take radiometric dating as the irrefutable gospel truth as the literature is replete with contamination events.

I have no requirement for the fossil record to be wrong. That's something you made up in your head.
AlcoholicRunner
I abduct humans and drink at the same time.

User ID: 23182389
United States
12/12/2012 09:25 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Alienbitch

[link to www.lloydpye.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/12/2012 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
bump
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/13/2012 06:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
bump
PEER
User ID: 21008556
United States
12/13/2012 06:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Ain't that cute.

You just discovered the epigenetics people, who were tearing down the hallways shouting "Natural Selection is dead!" about five years back.

Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well. And despite the usual old stogies, the modern synthesis proved happy enough to give epi a place at the table. Just not the head of the table like they'd hoped.

What's next? You gonna discover horizontal gene transfer?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


epigenetics are similar to a modern computer processor except it utilizes chemicals to turn genetic switch's on, or off. Clearly it reaks of intelligent design.

and this is only one example. There are 7 or 8 characteristics which in and of themselves would constitute high probability of intentful intelligent design, but when they coincide it is overwhelmingly likely that the 'thing' in question is intentionally and intelligently designed.

The characteristics which one could expect to find in a Universe, if there were indeed some masterful engineer behind it, can only be understood inasmuch as the characteristics resemble those of our own designs. Ironically the natural world often serves as the inspiration for many breakthroughs in Science and technology. Perhaps this phenomenon is worth considering further at a more appropriate juncture.
What then are the characteristics which might constitute an appearance of design? Perhaps a good place to begin is with some system or device which we know is designed. However it quickly becomes apparent that just not every Human convention or tool will suffice as a satisfactory analogy. The Universe is a complex array of orders of systems; all of these orders of systems are ‘self-sufficient’, and interdependent; every system is a Universe in and of itself, yet only a piece in the Grand Puzzle. For this reason our choice in device, which will act as a sort of control variable in this thought experiment, it must also possess attributes of complexity, autonomy, and interconnection. While many such devices exist in the museum of human convention, for the sake of simplicity, and due to the striking similarities, allow us to consider computer technologies.
 
The typical home computer consists of the following components: motherboard, CPU, hard drive, graphics processing unit, RAM, as well as wires, sensors, and cooling components. Peripherals, like a keyboard or a mouse, “connects” the User to the computer system. Speakers and monitors serve as feedback devices which enable and assist in the Users ability to interact with the computer.
While each component of the computer system is cohesive, or is a device in and of itself, it is at the same time comprised of countless subservient parallel components and systems, which are working in harmony for the operation of the computer, and ultimately to serve whatever function the User deems fit. For example consider the central processing unit: modern nanofabrication and lithographic technologies make it possible to squeeze more than 2 Billion microscopic transistors onto a single die which is only slightly larger than a postage stamp.
 
To further illustrate the similarity, and to further demonstrate its applicability, just consider the countless millions of other computers, and the diverse billions of components which comprise and differentiate them; at the same time many of these computers are all connected via the internet and peer to peer networks.
Some may rebut that the majority of PC users are surfing the web simultaneously, but independently of one another; that the degree of connectivity is relative, or variable; that these parallel complex systems are not cooperative because some are listening to music, some playing games, others are chatting, or doing research, and that consequently the connected web of computers cannot be said to be a cohesive system, although it is coherent. Conceding this others still may even press further, by contrasting the disorganized unity of the net against the sort of ‘cohesive autonomy’ that we find in the orders of systems which comprise the Universe(s), and in the whole lot of life. This also is true, but for the sake of being thorough, grant that we follow this thought experiment to its natural conclusions.
 
Server farms, cloud computing, and P2P networks like SETI@Home are just a few counter examples offered for computer technologies which demonstrate autonomy, complexity, and interconnectedness, and thus that the criteria which would constitute a fitting analogy seem met. Inasmuch as these orders of systems of computer technologies are complex, autonomous, and interdependent, they dimly resemble these same qualities which accompany the orders of systems that comprise the Universe.
Back to the question with which the discussion began; “what are the characteristics which might constitute an ‘appearance of design?’ Using computer technology as a control variable of a system with certain qualities which is known to be designed, and also as an analogous example of a complex, autonomous, and interconnected system of order by which to compare to the orders of systems which comprise the Universe, it then becomes possible to attempt to determine if there exist certain characteristics which can be derived to determine if some system is the product of intention and engineering, or of chance, coincidence, and happenstance.
 
First however recall the claim that “the characteristics which one could expect to find in a Universe, if there were some masterful engineer behind it, can only be understood inasmuch as the characteristics resemble characteristics of our own designs.”
Some may find such a premise as problematic. Even if it were possible to derive some fundamental requisite characteristics which accompany systems which have been designed, in what way can one practically use this information in examining the Universe, physical systems, and the lot of life? Is comparing computer systems to life, or the Universe, even relevant? Mustn’t we compare apples to apples? An ‘appearance of design’ could be interpreted ambiguously. Opponents of Intelligent Design subtly spin this appearance of design in such a manner, that ‘appearance of design’ observed in life, and in the Universes physical systems, is in fact just that, an appearance, and everyone knows that appearances can be deceiving, and that this is one such example. This idea is subtly communicated, and subliminally understood and accepted; that the appearance of design is illusory, or self-fulfilling, that if you look for it, then of course you will see it, so it is better to believe half of what you see because any appearance of design is prima facie, and de facto, simply a mirage.
 
The matter is not settled, and no conclusion has been reached. If we find certain characteristics of design in natural physical systems that resemble or parallel characteristics which we find in comparable Human engineered systems; if these characteristics can be reasonably understood as accompanying complex human engineered systems, then can we conclude with any certainty that these physical systems may too be designed? The answer seems to rest in the question of, do these characteristics and attributes necessarily accompany or signify systems which have been designed? Another way to understand this question is, can these characteristics be reasonably understood as occurring, or arising, in a physical system in the absence of intention or engineering?
 
The appropriate time has come then to revisit the phenomenon of how advances in science, medicine, and technology are increasingly being inspired by the natural world. The most obvious counter to this thought experiment lies here: if human engineered systems are inspired by, or based upon, systems which have been observed in nature, then it is inevitable that we will find similarities and striking parallels. The immediate reaction may be to simply preclude all such nature-inspired, human-engineered systems. However is this measure sufficient?
 
A more scrupulous critic may strike harder: prodding, “are there any human systems which are not inspired by nature?” Is it possible to even conceive of some physical object without first having experienced it via sensory perception? If nature fundamentally precedes the raw materials and the blue prints, then inevitably we will find resemblance between natural systems, and those designed by intelligent agents.
Granted that we draw upon the natural realm for the raw materials, and for the crude thought fodder, is it not also true that while there are birds, horses, and fish, there are no airplanes, sports cars, or submarines which occur naturally? Over time hasn’t mankind observed, experimented, learned, mastered, and innovated?
 
An artist uses many colors to paint a masterpiece, and draws inspiration from their Human experience—a capability which is made possible only by the anatomical structures and physiological processes which are involved in sensory perception, in addition to the countless other complex bodily systems upon which experiencing an aesthetic masterpiece are dependent upon. Does the fact that artistic creativity is contingent upon these many bodily components and systems somehow render the masterpiece repulsive, or the artist unaccomplished? Why then should the fact that because Humans derive inspiration from Nature, that it somehow necessarily follows that therefore Human engineering is excluded as a possible model to glean characteristics which might signify, accompany, or constitute intelligent design.

With these criticisms acknowledged it is appropriate now to propose that some characteristics which would certainly suggest intention and/or design are: complexity, precision in critical variables, specialization/compartmentalization, efficiency, efficacy, inter connectivity/interdependence, and lastly that more interpretive characteristic which is arguably subjective or ambiguous is an appearance of ingenuity or problem solving. If any one of these unlikely and unexpected qualities is observed in some object, it would seem reasonable to entertain the possibility that this object is engineered, and if many of these qualities coincide, it would be unreasonable not to entertain the design hypothesis. Yet it is precisely these qualities that science discovers in every nook and cranny of the Universe, and in all orders of systems!
 Quoting: The God Solution by M.F. Alexander
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/14/2012 08:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: EVOLUTION DOGMA CHALLENGED
Ain't that cute.

You just discovered the epigenetics people, who were tearing down the hallways shouting "Natural Selection is dead!" about five years back.

Pity it turns out you can't specify an entire organism with just epi. You kinda haveta have some genetic material as well. And despite the usual old stogies, the modern synthesis proved happy enough to give epi a place at the table. Just not the head of the table like they'd hoped.

What's next? You gonna discover horizontal gene transfer?
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


epigenetics are similar to a modern computer processor except it utilizes chemicals to turn genetic switch's on, or off. Clearly it reaks of intelligent design.
 Quoting: PEER 21008556


What's funny is that we do not find any transitional stages for cell, genome, epigenome complexity. It's all there and working marvelously from the very beginning.

Evolutionists must constantly push all the magic cellular self-formation events back into the distant past where we can not see it, nor do we see any evidence of it. Nor do we have a rational hypothesis for it. It is the ultimate demonstration of blind faith.

News