Woman aborts her child because its "good for the planet"
-
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
It proposes no mechanism, neither have any of its past incarnations prosed any mechanism not now disproved, capable of increasing the information capacity of a genome above the complexity of that belonging to a bacterium. It is therefore incapable by ommission of explaining the exitence of the majority of extant or even extinct species. Natural selection happens and can be observed, mutation happens and can be observed, the 2 do not and cannot ever add up to an explanation of the flaura and fauna observed, even given 10^100 years and a free ride at a 10^1(place 200 zeros here) chance. A theory that does not explain what it set out to explain, the origin of species, though it neatly explains speciation (a de-evoltionary process) or what it claims to explain, pretty much everything, is a dead theory. It is also a stumbling block in the way of scientific progress and a handicap to anyone actually trying to understand the world.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
-
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Such a question is assuming quite a lot. Firstly that an 'explanation' is required, secondly that one is possible and thirdly that science is applicable to derive one. None of these assumptions seems particularly certain or in fact less fundamental than the theory of evolution itself, even if there was one theory and it actually made sense. The current biological diversity is 'explained' best in my opinion by an a priore diverse creation much altered by fall and flood and the degredations of time in a fallen universe, just one of which is speciation caused by loss of genetic compatability, this being the result of death without offspring ( so called natural selection ) and genetic damage ( mutation ). The fossil evidence is witness to the great global catastrophe of the flood which made large proportions of the species of the time extinct, including interestingly wiping out 99.some9s% of the genetic diversity in the human species. That we have an environemntally functioning world today and a more or less sustainable human race is testament to the incredibly robust design inherent in creation and to the massive adaptability and in engineering terms 'over specification' of the originally created genomes. It fascinates me to think that the fact that almost all modern humans have five fingers rather than six may simply have been an 'accident' of which genes were and weren't present amongst the handful of flood survivors. Maybe purple and blue people were originally quite common or healthy 7'6" teenagers. Such things are of course idle speculation but they go to show that the biggest problem with 'evolution' is the effect it has on our understanding of what it is to be human. That in turn has profound psychological and social implications beyond even the scientific ones. It's not just a matter of science but of who and what we are, of the value and meaning of life. When science starts trying to dictate these things albeit indirectly then it must deal in the domain of theology where it has no authority and has to give way to greater truths about which it can have nothing valid to say. This is not to say that there is any ultimate conflict between science and theology, I believe there is not. Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that. :
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Modern evolutonary theory is scientific - it explains observable phenomenon in a way that does not depend upon supernatural or divine explanations. 'Punctuated Equilibrium' is an explanation that does not reguire God, therefore it is scientific. The only possible objection is that it is not yet a complete theory. There are, in fact, many things it cannot explain. But the same is true of every field of science. Physicists cannot yet explain the cause of gravity, but that does not invalidate the entire science of physics. Again, if you can similarly explain the pertinent observable phenomenon in a way that does not depend upon supernatural causes, lets hear it. For example, explain how the universe came to be populated by galaxies billions of lights years apart in a way that does not say "God did it". Thats the rules of the game.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Such a question is assuming quite a lot. Firstly that an 'explanation' is required, secondly that one is possible and thirdly that science is applicable to derive one. None of these assumptions seems particularly certain or in fact less fundamental than the theory of evolution itself, even if there was one theory and it actually made sense. The current biological diversity is 'explained' best in my opinion by an a priore diverse creation much altered by fall and flood and the degredations of time in a fallen universe, just one of which is speciation caused by loss of genetic compatability, this being the result of death without offspring ( so called natural selection ) and genetic damage ( mutation ). The fossil evidence is witness to the great global catastrophe of the flood which made large proportions of the species of the time extinct, including interestingly wiping out 99.some9s% of the genetic diversity in the human species. That we have an environemntally functioning world today and a more or less sustainable human race is testament to the incredibly robust design inherent in creation and to the massive adaptability and in engineering terms 'over specification' of the originally created genomes. It fascinates me to think that the fact that almost all modern humans have five fingers rather than six may simply have been an 'accident' of which genes were and weren't present amongst the handful of flood survivors. Maybe purple and blue people were originally quite common or healthy 7'6" teenagers. Such things are of course idle speculation but they go to show that the biggest problem with 'evolution' is the effect it has on our understanding of what it is to be human. That in turn has profound psychological and social implications beyond even the scientific ones. It's not just a matter of science but of who and what we are, of the value and meaning of life. When science starts trying to dictate these things albeit indirectly then it must deal in the domain of theology where it has no authority and has to give way to greater truths about which it can have nothing valid to say. This is not to say that there is any ultimate conflict between science and theology, I believe there is not. Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that. :
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that.
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that.
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble. When the purpose of science becomes justification for atheism as
Stan Shannon wrote:
exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination. This ways lies the death of science which I have posted about before and is certainly a worse and more likely 21st global catastrophe than GW.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble. When the purpose of science becomes justification for atheism as
Stan Shannon wrote:
exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination. This ways lies the death of science which I have posted about before and is certainly a worse and more likely 21st global catastrophe than GW.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades.
Yeah, back in the 60's it was very common to examine drug efficacy by having treatment, placebo, and prayer groups. :rolleyes:
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Ilíon wrote:
- 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing.
Sure it does, especially in concert with our understanding of molecular biology and biochemistry. Do you really think evolution exists in a vacuum?
Ilíon wrote:
1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest."
Wow, a quote from a hundred years ago. You've really captured the pulse of modern biology with that one. But he's right - natural selection doesn't explain that - genetics and molecular biology does. Ever hear of the modern synthesis? Gee, that just might have happened after 1904.
Ilíon wrote:
"the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium")
No, it's completely consistent. Besides, whining about how incomplete the fossil record is these days is disingenuous with the information gleaned thanks to recent advances in genomics, improved sequencing techniques, and the greater computing power available to organize the information.
Ilíon wrote:
'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Sure it is. It's testable and falsifiable. I hope this post leads you into a greater appreciation and understanding of such a diverse, complicated, and rewarding scientific field. Sincerely, Fisticuffs, B.Sc Molecular Biology
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble. When the purpose of science becomes justification for atheism as
Stan Shannon wrote:
exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination. This ways lies the death of science which I have posted about before and is certainly a worse and more likely 21st global catastrophe than GW.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hits the nail on the head of how science has changed and become 'broken' in the past few decades. When a scientific theory no longer has any need to be true then science is in deep, deep trouble.
Why? Newton's theories did not represent truth. But they did represent useful predictability. The same thing will certainly be true for Einstein and other modern theories. They will in time be overthrown in favor of theories of more accurate predictability. Science is not a search for truth, it is merely a humble search for predictability - ie to be able to sufficiently understand the mechanism of our univers that we can enigneer solutions that improve the state of human life. Thats it. To put science on a higher pedestal than that, to make it about the search for 'truth' should be rejected utterly, especially by religious people.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
implies then it is no longer science at all and has becomes an anti-religion, a religion which denies its status as one, therefore resting on a lie and falsifying itself and undermining all its claims without further need for examination.
I agree completely with that point. Science has become anti-religion, and for many it has become a kind of religion. But that is precisely becuase the intent of science has been usurped by secular humanists who have made it so. The situation is precisely the opposite of what you depict.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
You don't understand evolution, you silly duffer. The reason that the majority of biologists don't have a satisfactory grasp of it is, as you'd probably know, explained a tiny bit further in the article. People assume that they know all about it - I think you'll find that amateurs usually overestimate their abilities in a chosen field. They also speculate too loudly, and spread disinformation. What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Science at its best is the quest to understand the what and how and when, the mechanism, where theology addresess the why. When they work together as they should science comes close to what has been described as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. I cannot think of a more rewarding career or fufilling pastime than that.
Not true at all. Science is by definion a-religious. It exists precisely to derive explanations of the universe that do not depend upon divine causes. A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A scientific theory has no need to be true, it merely needs to predictably explain.
That fucks up AGW gthen.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Time will tell.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What, for example, is the most glaringly obvious fault with evolutionary theory?
Noncontinuous fosil records I would say.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
There are plenty of reasons that that could have happened, but as far as I know, apart from a few anomalies, the fossil record is actually pretty good.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
'Modern evolutionary theory' in a nutshell: "If one adds '-1' to '0' enough times (recurrsively, if need be), one can acheive '1'" :laugh:
Your analogy is retarded. In fact, it's nothing whatsoever like evolution. What it does do, however, is paint a rather clear picture as to why you have no idea about anything.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence. If you have a better one, lets hear it.
This reflects a logical fallacy that we can call "Best in Class." Also, question-begging. Also, special-pleading. Also, shifting-the-burden-of-proof. An analogy:
'Bubba' is on trial for the premeditated murder of Mr Jones. The prosecution is making its final argument: "... And so in conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, while the Defense has blown holes all through the case we have presented, the fact reamins that 'Bubba Done It!' is the explanation we have for the heinous murder of Mr Jones. Therefore, I call upon you to convict Bubba of this heinous muder!"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet it remains the only scientific explaination for current biological diversity and available fossil evidence.
This claim itself is false, on both particulars: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' explains "current biological diversity" only if one uses a very tendentious definition for "explain" and "diversity" -- and more importantly, it doesn't explain biological complexity, which is supposedly what Darwin and all his Disciples were/are doing. 1a) As DeVries said (in 1904, as I understand it): "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 'Modern evolutionary theory' still cannot and never will be able to explain the arrival of "the fittest." 2) "the fossil evidence" is quite *contrary* to 'modern evolutionary theory' (that is, after all, *why* Gould and Eldridge invented "punctuated equilibrium") Or, if you look at it another way, the claim is false on all three particulars: 3) 'modern evolutionary theory' is in no way scientific, in the first place!
Another retarded analogy. You seem to be assuming that science is as moronic as you are. Scientists don't cling to theories if they are proven wrong. It's completely testable as well, and has been replicated many times. Antibiotic resistant bacteria stand testament to that. Also, evolutionary theory doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, but that is definitely not ignored by other branches. And, in fact, they're coming along quite nicely. And I'll think you'll find that the fossil record isn't quite *contrary* at all. Yes, there are a few anomalies, things that any statistician will tell you are completely reasonable (mathematics can be considered a science too). However, generally, things are found where they should be found, and when they aren't, it's completely in the spirit of science to find out why. By the way, how is 'modern evolutionary theory' in no way scientific?
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
There are plenty of reasons that that could have happened, but as far as I know, apart from a few anomalies, the fossil record is actually pretty good.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
It seems that evoloution lurches from one stable state to another. We dont have in-between states. Where is the part eye for example? What do you think is the glaringly obvious fault with evoloutionary theory?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It seems that evoloution lurches from one stable state to another. We dont have in-between states. Where is the part eye for example? What do you think is the glaringly obvious fault with evoloutionary theory?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I have to go in a sec, but I suggest you look up the pineal gland in other animals.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.
-
I have to go in a sec, but I suggest you look up the pineal gland in other animals.
Dr. Ravel Joyce, Cubic Self is cubeless. God is cubeless.