You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global warming

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Quote:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Wait, it gets better....

Here's the data proving evolution doesn't exist:

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

That's the wrong data. The right data is there never has been any data to prove evolution. You're thinking of fundamentalists that want to use the Bible to prove God created Heaven and Earth. There is really no difference between Darwinists and Christianists.

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

I thought we tried to check on the level of global warming by attempting to feel the temperature of the urine running down our backs.

Buddha, could you pass some of that tp my way?

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

We did. We threw out the data to support our claims. I don't want to go through that whole thing again.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Seems only Fox News and Comdey Central are reproting on this "Climategate."

Glad to see Fox and Comedy Central have reconciled.

I admit to being a liberal and I think ABC, CBS, NBC dropped the ball, too.

An actual good Fox News Story!

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
That's the wrong data. The right data is there never has been any data to prove evolution. You're thinking of fundamentalists that want to use the Bible to prove God created Heaven and Earth. There is really no difference between Darwinists and Christianists.

Got to agree with you here, I find it surprising that the very scientists who ridicule religion can then follow evolution with such and equal blind faith; in reality both are flawed and both missing a terrible amount of information, and importantly both sides suffer bias.
Classic case is where some believed they had found the missing link in evolution that was meant to be the link between humans and apes.
Turns out wrong.

Another is how there is this interest in how chimpanzees are meant to be unique in their intelligence for use of tools, this has also shown to be rather a large step of reasoning.
Seems Rooks may be able to reason as well as chimpanzees when it comes to puzzles-tools. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6360754.ece

Another mind boggling one is a meteorite that is a chunk from Mars and managed to hit this planet.
It is all very interesting that they prove the chunk did have bacteria, but just as importantly that everyone does not seem excited about is..
What are the odds of an incredibly large asteroid hitting Mars, breaking off a chunk that then becomes a meteor and has a perfect angle-trajectory factoring in gravity and vast distances; travels millions of miles at the same time the planets are travelling at thousands of kmh, manages to avoid the moon (which is a proven shield against many meteors) and hit this planet.
Seems to me those odds are quite baffling, but they are far more happy arguing solely about whether it is a bacteria organism in the rock or not.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6934078.ece

Cheers
Orb

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Thank you!

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Seems only Fox News and Comdey Central are reproting on this "Climategate."

Glad to see Fox and Comedy Central have reconciled.

I admit to being a liberal and I think ABC, CBS, NBC dropped the ball, too.

An actual good Fox News Story!

Not really, I read about the head of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit stepping down as a result this morning in my local paper. The original story was printed last week. You do have newspapers in Sin City don't you?

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Got to agree with you here, I find it surprising that the very scientists who ridicule religion can then follow evolution with such and equal blind faith; in reality both are flawed and both missing a terrible amount of information, and importantly both sides suffer bias.

Let's see:

Evidence for a deity: None

Evidence for evolution: Enormous...

But these are the "same" if you wish to try to deny science and ignore testability, I guess.

Typical reaction of an anti-science proponent. Perhaps, since you are anti-science, you might also consider not using modern medicine, fabrics, housing, vehicles, etc?

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 7 hours ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:

Got to agree with you here, I find it surprising that the very scientists who ridicule religion can then follow evolution with such and equal blind faith; in reality both are flawed and both missing a terrible amount of information, and importantly both sides suffer bias.

Let's see:

Evidence for a deity: None

Evidence for evolution: Enormous...

But these are the "same" if you wish to try to deny science and ignore testability, I guess.

Typical reaction of an anti-science proponent. Perhaps, since you are anti-science, you might also consider not using modern medicine, fabrics, housing, vehicles, etc?

Those who don't believe in evolution won't ever be convinced no matter how much proof is put forth. If it isn't in the "Bible" they won't believe.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Ah James, but provide the 5 best facts you feel supporting evolution of the human species as per Darwinism, with a scientific methodology.

Bearing in mind that the evolution requires a common link between human and apes (thesis of Darwinism) and it just has never been found.
Yes evolution does occur, but you are saying evolution is proven to show that humans come from bacteria in a random natural selection-survival of the fittest fashion.
This means you have to prove the links not only between say humans and apes, but how we even reached the stages from sea based life to bipeds without ever suffering from extinction.
Its been proven if you do not mate like rabbits when your species is under a certain number it goes into terminal decline.
On top of this you have to factor in the life we evolved from not only survived in some of the harshest conditions on Earth, but thrived.
Case in point, if we started as sea based life and by evolution standards it would be a small group, how did it manage not to be spread out into the seas and dilute the groups too much?
Or how about natural selection evolution requires mating between physically different species (take the proposal of ape-early man with a bridge species), now this is quite incredible when you consider that racism is still strong today and that is among the very same species (modern humans) with minimal physical differences.
So we need to assume or suspend racial prejudices that would most likely have existed even then between two sub groups with one being much more advanced.

This is just some very brief concepts that all need answering in detail and with facts.
The closest you get to facts with regards to this and how we evolved is that it was chance.
But the probability is sooo insignificance it then points to the more likely concept that chance does not exist meaning; who we are, what we will do,etc has in theory happened as it was designed that way from the birth of the universe with the laws we live in.
This was one aspect that Einstein pondered as well.

On top of this you would also need to associate with evolution how life comes from its basic elements, the creation of certain laws in physics and bioligy,etc.
I could go on, but it is an absolute leap of faith, involving maths that may prove nothing is chance - including the choices we make.
In a way this argues intelligent design, but not necessarily in the same way and view of God and creatinism.

But you cannot argue the case for evolution when you have no facts that can conclusively support it, or even validate beyond theory that is debatable.
Simplest points, Darwin's point is that apes and humans originated from the same species (not that we came from apes), this is the missing link that some scientists believed they had found and I provided a link on awhile ago.
The reality was it had nothing in common to the missing link Darwin proposes that shows the giant leaps of evolution.

Another example is intelligence in humans and apes, and theory on how intelligence evolves, the very link I provided in this thread again proves the theory needs to be revised as it cannot take into account very different species with same capabilities for problem solving-tool use as chimpanzees.

Just curious what facts you feel prove evolution, and overcomes severe challenges of DNA dilution, extinction when low number of species, the incredible complex requirements for life to exist and grow (such as balance of the food chain, plants, oxygen,etc).

Its a nice theory but it IS full of compromises, and the same could be said about creationism.

This is not saying evolution does not occur, it does but what we cannot define the scale,limitations,implications,etc.

Just couple of summary links that highlight a bit of this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...t-creation.html

But it is fun to discuss.
I would say if there is any conclusion, then both Darwinism and Creatinism look to prove that chance and probability does not exist.
Everything has its structure including causality with no chance-probability of deviation, although following that logic through to the end raises some uncomfortable concepts.
Another link that ties in with regards to a specific aspect of the mathematic challenge of Darwinism:
http://darwinsmaths.com/

And finally just to add to the discussion a link that covers what I mentioned earlier with regards to structure, potential of intelligent design but not per se God, and evolution being involved but not as defined by Darwin:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution/
Respect to Barbara McClintock

Cheers
Orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

See my response.
If you understood my point you would not raise the case of point with regards to the Bible.

Its about proof, there is no proof beyond theory and basic evolution knowledge that does not cover the scope of Darwinism.
For a Nobel prize winning biologists view that was deemed radical for having a different perspective check out Barbara McClintock, if you wont do anything else.

Have you considered that maybe both evolution and intelligent design co-exist?
With so many facts unknown it is as plausible as anything else.
Bearing in mind intelligent design does not necessarily mean Bible and God.

Cheers
Orb

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

I am on no side of this 'battle'..but today I saw a funky name change for Barack that I have just got to share: "Bareback Yomama".

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:
Seems only Fox News and Comdey Central are reproting on this "Climategate."

Glad to see Fox and Comedy Central have reconciled.

I admit to being a liberal and I think ABC, CBS, NBC dropped the ball, too.

An actual good Fox News Story!

Not really, I read about the head of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit stepping down as a result this morning in my local paper. The original story was printed last week. You do have newspapers in Sin City don't you?

Yeah, good point, all the newspapers beat CBS, NBC, and ABC, too!

Hell, there will probably be some monthly publications that scoop the major networks on this, as well.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

You always show up with an empty paper sack talking about this "enormous" amount of evidence that supports Charles Darwin was Jesus Christ.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Just to throw in a bit more info for the discussion, here is a good balanced discussion regarding evolution-Darwinism, definitely worth a read for everyone as it captures just how complex this subject really is and how political it has become with some pushing the Darwinism perspective.
http://www.thomasmoreinstitute.org.uk/node/143

I guess this compares nicely to the global warming debate.

Cheers
Orb

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa
Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Yes evolution does occur...

So, for clarity, what are your limits as to what evolution can produce?

For instance, could a haploid single cell organism ever 'evolve' from such a genetically deficient state into something like a human?

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Good point and one of the reasons those links I posted should be read.
The subject is so incredibly complex scientists just do not know.
Aspects of evolution has been proved (see with regards to finches, and some other aspects), however other aspects fly in the face of current evolution thoughts.

Part of the problem is that it will be hard for those pushing Darwinism evolution to accept or even consider other evolution theories, mainly because it suggests that the random requirement of evolution is flawed.
Now if it is not random, this then brings up intelligent design, and this is really uncomfortable for neo-darwinism even if it is intelligent design without God-Bible.

Did you read the last link I posted that was a more balanced discussion from Drs-scientists?
If you look back to my original post, I said that the current thought on evolution is flawed, biased, and not with all the facts.
After that JJ then responded that forced me to highlight some of the challenges and issues (appreciate this is not what your raising but just putting a check in so we remember how the discussion has evolved boom boom )

I think the closest we have in modern scientific understanding of genetic mutation is from research by Barbera McClintock, which suggests that it is not minor random mutations but mass intelligent design changes (this does not necessarily mean God - just saying this otherwise some will bash on).
Crux here is intelligent design meaning what.....

For some evolution can be seen as a tool for intelligent design (however what the scope and implications of intelligent design needs to be identified), for others its just Darwinism, and others just Creatinism.

Back to answering your question, I just do not know and nor do scientists, unless they want to make assumptions which clearly are debatable as per the links.
With the facts we do have, evolution is shown only in minor changes and not leaps; facts that fly in the face of Darwinism are pretty much laid out such as the coding for the eye, intelligence in rooks comparable to chimpanzees, random mutation and the maths involved, genetic changes as per Barbar McClintock, no missing link currently found linking human species to side species such as apes,etc.

If required I can produce quotes or information from mathematicians to various scientists that also suggest we just do not have enough facts and knowledge, and shows it is a leap of faith as much as creatinism when considing human species and origins of species.

One area where it seems to me both Darwinism and Creationism do miss out; specifically the critical balance between the various requirements of sustaining or even creating a biosphere, in this case Earth.
So its not just about human species it must also consider the incredible complex balance and interchange between plants and various species, this can be from oxygenation to pollenisation, to precipitation and rainfall,thermal weather patterns, etc.
All of these are critical for species to survive and many are critically linked to each other - cannot exist otherwise.

I would say my opinion is; chance and randomness had nothing to do with this and both Darwinism and Creatinism require a belief in them.
So you managed to take a look at those links and whats your thoughts, just curious

Cheers
Orb

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

I keep asking the Darwinists to show me something in the fossil record and they won't so I doubt they will read your linked articles. Buddha might but the rest are dumb as a bag of hammers.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Trying to keep the topic on the lighter side, I think there are ample examples of what are called 'transitional' fossils that fit exquisitely well with the notion of evolution.

A decent starting place: Plain old Wikipedia, but a nice list.

_____________


Quote:
Or how about natural selection evolution requires mating between physically different species...

Actually, it doesn't.

What evolution postulates is incremental change over time, not a monkey giving birth to a human. I think the gradation of the process is where too many evolution deniers drop anchor.

"Can a fish give birth to a human? I think not!" is not how the idea of evolution works. The main notion is that genetic change does occur in random fashion, with subtle reproductive advantages being favored and changes that make for a decline in fecundity being disfavored.

(A study of genes themselves readily points out that such genetic variations occur and we know from these studies that rates of changes occurring are also calculable.)

Evolution deniers these days are 'tolerant' of micro-evolution based on readily made observations over short periods of time, so I guess our main disagreement here is regarding the scale of what evolution can accomplish.

Anyway, back to your quote..."natural selection evolution requires mating between physically different species..."

Actually, what it generally requires is divergence from similarity, not a meeting of dissimilars.

What I find too incredible to give credence is the notion that humans are somehow quantumly different in the rules of nature to an extent that our miraculous existence somehow acts as proof of a 'creator/designer.'

I honestly would like the hear where your jumping off point is for where you think evolution sits within the pantheon of forces responsible for the planet's diversity of life.

As JBS Haldane was fond of saying, "If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles."

(No flames intending in this post, just in case I seemed too emphatic.)

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Somebody posted that wiki page before. Nice set of individual species. I'm surprised there isn't a zebra at the end instead of a horse. But as most things Darwin they state it is due to natural selection with nothing to show for it except species that appear similar. We should start closer to home with Homo sapien.


Quote:
Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.

So, whoever posted that sentence knows there is a hole in the idea and places all his or her chips on Darwin.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Evolution


Quote:
The forces of natural selection have continued to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display directional selection in the past 15,000 years

There we have it again. It is definitely natural selection. If you read the entire section on "Evolution" it doesn't even start out with natural selection and yet it ends with natural selection; i.e. the thesis statement. There is not one word about fossil records. Just a bunch of bullshit about our closest ancestors (living and dead) and how we started out in a village in Angolia. I can tear that up just as easy as Adam & Eve. Darwin is science. It needs to stand up to layman sense. It has to be in the fossil record and Darwin himself spent the rest of life in agony because simple-minded fools brought up what he forgot to mention and what his followers failed to acknowledge.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Ah Buddha,
all that is countered in the links I provided, why not respond to those
You may stay with wiki, think I will stay with the mathematicians and scientist as I outlined and are outlined in some of those links.

Did you read those links before posting that, I am wondering if you feel such mathematicians-scientists-drs-etc are flawed for their proposal on Darwinism and how far conclusions are reached with evolution (in other words assumptions).

Cheers
Orb

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Ah Buddha,
all that is countered in the links I provided, why not respond to those
You may stay with wiki, think I will stay with the mathematicians and scientist as I outlined and are outlined in some of those links.

Did you read those links before posting that, I am wondering if you feel such mathematicians-scientists-drs-etc are flawed for their proposal on Darwinism and how far conclusions are reached with evolution (in other words assumptions).

Cheers
Orb

I read them all, I wondered if you had your own synthesis or merely wanted to parrot the articles.

Some are pap, sorryly.

I think some of those people would question the idea that a sperm and egg can produce a human!

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Ah thats what I thought.
So what part do you disagree with and how do you counter their facts or scientific opinions?
I guess one of the leading mathematicians ever to live is a pap as well

Edit:
BTW I think your being rather insultive to suggest they would somehow be negative towards sperm,etc.
In most cases these are scientists and Drs who are not saying God is the only way, but point out how false and assumption based many are with regards to Darwinism and evolution as per his approach.
This is why your response is insultive, and rather biased as it does not reflect their actual attitudes.
Surprised to be honest.
Cheers
orb

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Given the astronomical odds of the specific sperm that lead to your creation, it is likely a statistical impossibility that you exist, according to your mathematicians.

In addition to God, have you another hypothesis for this so called 'intelligent' design?

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

I read them all, I wondered if you had your own synthesis or merely wanted to parrot the articles....

Because such a debate should involve those that are highly proficient on such debates.
Would you prefer my own words that would be easy to argue against, or those with more knowledge-experience on the subject?
As I stated this is such a complex subject, trying to come off as being all knowing and all conclusive is absolute nonsense, especially if one resorts to just calling some of those paps without referring to weighted sources of information themselves.
Of course I appreciate you may be a scientist and strong mathematician so maybe you just can work it all out by yourself

Anyway, I think I have highlighted as well as can be done what the challenges are with Darwinism based evolution, and avoided the most religious counter based arguments-sites being thrown around on the internet.

If you cannot accept the concept of the maths showing its soooo unlikely, or works by Barbara McClintock which seems go against such grains of small random changes, or indeed as one of those links shows that mapping the genes throws more questions than it actually answered.

On top of this it cannot take into account why rooks can manage problem solving and tool making comparable to chimps.
If evolution is small random steps; then such diverse species should not have such capabilities - hence the relationship between man and apes (this has been a point in small step evolution arguments for awhile pointing to the intelligence in apes).
And finally this leads to the other point you did not answer; the Darwin missing link that some scientists believed they had found and has proved to be wrong.
So still no missing link.

Overall this just goes towards showing that those pushing Darwinism concept of evolution possibly screw up other more modern theories that may shed better light on evolution.
I guess I could say, those that cannot take into account the information presented for suggesting Darwinism is flawed and are not supporting Creatinism must also be *insert insult here* as well

Cheers
Orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Given the astronomical odds of the specific sperm that lead to your creation, it is likely a statistical impossibility that you exist, according to your mathematicians.

In addition to God, have you another hypothesis for this so called 'intelligent' design?

OK, you really did not read those links if you cannot understand concept of intelligent design without it meaning to be God.

Cheers
orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Given the astronomical odds of the specific sperm that lead to your creation, it is likely a statistical impossibility that you exist, according to your mathematicians.

In addition to God, have you another hypothesis for this so called 'intelligent' design?

Interesting point with the view that sperm and pregnancy is statistically impossible according to mathematics, where did you read that?
Thanks
Orb

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:
Given the astronomical odds of the specific sperm that lead to your creation, it is likely a statistical impossibility that you exist, according to your mathematicians.

In addition to God, have you another hypothesis for this so called 'intelligent' design?

Interesting point with the view that sperm and pregnancy is statistically impossible according to mathematics, where did you read that?
Thanks
Orb

Just look at the odds. It's as impossible as evolution.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

So your making an assumption?
Where as there is various mathematicians,scientists who put forward the debate with regards to Darwinism you prefer to use assumptions to counter them.

Ah well, I guess I should state in future "links counter what your saying" as it will be quicker.

You know what really gets me, is the fact your hostile to a debate and insultive (coming back to the paps statement you accused these people of being) to those that argue against Darwinism even though they are not pushing the God argument, quite strange.
Especially as they prove evolution does occur, just not as described in the happy world of Darwinism
I guess they really must be paps then Buddha, or that your showing the classic examples of bias,politics, etc

Cheers
Orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Actually, it doesn't.

What evolution postulates is incremental change over time, not a monkey giving birth to a human. I think the gradation of the process is where too many evolution deniers drop anchor.

"Can a fish give birth to a human? I think not!" is not how the idea of evolution works. The main notion is that genetic change does occur in random fashion, with subtle reproductive advantages being favored and changes that make for a decline in fecundity being disfavored.

(A study of genes themselves readily points out that such genetic variations occur and we know from these studies that rates of changes occurring are also calculable.)

Ok this is rather strange because this goes against what was part of what Barbara McClintock proved scientifically and received a Nobel for, specifically in nature genetic change was not small random changes.
Another point you ignore (maybe for good reason) is that genetics has proved the sharing of information - again this goes against Darwinism.
And random genetic changes, I guess you really did not follow the mathematics article showing just how it really cannot work.
Clear example, you mention fossils can be proved in terms of evolution as per Darwinism, but sorry it cannot it ties closer to the proposal of Barbara McClintock.
There is so much more information that counters what your saying that it is hard not to see it when reading those links.

I hope others take the time to read those links I provided and then look at what your saying.
Those links and the information is not focused specifically by the "religious nuts" as I think some would like to say, in fact they are staying out of religion.
Bit too late to do a good reply so hope this will do.

Cheers
Orb

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:
Actually, it doesn't.

What evolution postulates is incremental change over time, not a monkey giving birth to a human. I think the gradation of the process is where too many evolution deniers drop anchor.

"Can a fish give birth to a human? I think not!" is not how the idea of evolution works. The main notion is that genetic change does occur in random fashion, with subtle reproductive advantages being favored and changes that make for a decline in fecundity being disfavored.

(A study of genes themselves readily points out that such genetic variations occur and we know from these studies that rates of changes occurring are also calculable.)

Ok this is rather strange because this goes against what was part of what Barbara McClintock proved scientifically and received a Nobel for, specifically in nature genetic change was not small random changes.

There is much more going on than only one type of genetic change. The scientiic literature abounds with significant changes associated with as little as one base-pair difference between genes. Genetic change can take place anywhere from one base pair change all the way to transposition of entire pieces of chromosomes, even the retention of triploid or higher genetic changes. McClintock described one sort of change, not all sorts of change

Another point you ignore (maybe for good reason) is that genetics has proved the sharing of information - again this goes against Darwinism.

Again, there is a plentiful data about the sharing of genetic information. Nothing about this is 'anti-evolution.' If genetic change could not be shared, then how would variation come about, even for the purposes of your version of micro-evolution? Reproduction is all about sharing genetic information, with many examples that show a reproductive penalty for certain genetic results, as well.

And random genetic changes, I guess you really did not follow the mathematics article showing just how it really cannot work.

This sort of event happens all the time. There are well calculated rates of genetic 'error' with replication. In fact, one of the main tenants is that just such random change can and does occur. DNA is a lossy system, falling somewhere between Fiat and Lexus for its consistently with replication. You need to read a few more articles about how DNA works.

Clear example, you mention fossils can be proved in terms of evolution as per Darwinism, but sorry it cannot it ties closer to the proposal of Barbara McClintock.

You can also search for some good artcles by Stephen J Gould about the nature of evolutionary change. McClintock described transpositions of pieces of chromosomes, but DNA changes can occur at much smaller scales.

Also, look for how things would be expected to show up in the fossile record and you'll see good concoradnce with the notion of evolution. Do you postulate that everything was instantaneously created by one intelligent designer? Did He create, then leave and come back only recently in order to further intelligently design humans?

There is so much more information that counters what your saying that it is hard not to see it when reading those links.

I guess you see what your proclivities allow you to see. The fact that you try to parse evoltuion as occurring, but just not on some arbitray scale that you set seems the most strikingly odd to me.

I hope others take the time to read those links I provided and then look at what your saying.
Those links and the information is not focused specifically by the "religious nuts" as I think some would like to say, in fact they are staying out of religion.
Bit too late to do a good reply so hope this will do.

Not requiring any certain God or Gods, where does your theory of intelligent design derive? The fact that we are biologically complex requires some sort of inventor, I suppose, but then you are on the hook to begin postulating the why and wherefore of your hypothesis? Where did our intelligent designer come from?

Cheers
Orb

If you ponder what would be required for you to accept the notion of evolution occurring, we have evidence of almost every example you could wish.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Excellent and thats my point Buddha.
There is a counter argument for everything we "believe" we know and understand about evolution.
In other words there is no conclusive evidence, anyone taking that step is then using bias by deciding the counter argument is wrong by assumption, belief because we do not have all the facts.

BTW politics is heavily involved by many in this subject and yes I have read articles by Stephen J Gould and also counter arguments.

Remember though my original point with regards to evolution; both evolution and creatinism is flawed with both requiring a belief (if taking Darwinism evolution concept), with many using bias to decide on a conclusion as fact.

Nothing has changed, I could provide more info with regards to work by Barbara McClintock, her findings were a surprise to the scientific world.
Just wondering if you read the wiki entry for her (not that good), she did more than just chromosomes outlined on wiki.
I know how you hate the parrot fashion I use but its the only way to get accurate information relayed that is difficult to refute:
From nobelprizeorg snippet of her talking about this:

Quote:
. Both Beadle and Rhoades recognized the need and the significance of exploring the relation between chromosomes and genes as well as other aspects of cytogenetics.
The initial association of the three of us, followed subsequently by inclusion of any interested graduate student, formed a close-knit group eager to discuss all phases of genetics, including those being revealed or suggested by our own efforts.

Bottom line, there is still too much scope for counter arguing anything you propose that stands for evolution in the concept as per Darwinism.
Of course you can decide to ignore counter arguments and blissfully continue in Darwinism happiness, but I do not think your a fan of debate when it comes to this subject
Bottom line, you cannot cherry pick the known facts that suite your belief; in other words stating that while Barbara proved scientifically that mass changes occur as it does not fit the system you like we ignore it and choose something else.
Cheers
Orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

With the genome mentioned I thought now would be a good time to share the following balanced paper from a neutral site that highlights the unresolved aspects of genomics and Darwinism.
Again fundamentally it supports Barbara McClintock, shows there is a multitude of areas that are still not resolved, and shows the problems-challenges of Darwinism not reflecting modern evolution concepts.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/?tool=pubmed

This is a pretty technical article where it puts forward the discussion to begin with from Darwinism perspective and then from modern evolution fallacy arguments of Darwinism, with a rather lengthy conclusion.
Basically though the point I am making is that what some proposed as genetics supporting Darwinism form of evolution does not, and really only proves we do not fully understand evolution.

So yes small minor evolution does occur (look back and I said that) but its scale and limitations cannot reflect and provide a model-evidence supporting minor random changes are how we evolved into modern human species from goo.

As the article is so long winded here are a few snippets from conclusion;

Quote:

Comparative genomics revealed a striking diversity of evolutionary processes that was unimaginable in the pre-genomic era.
In addition to point mutations that can be equated with Darwin's

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Snip....Again, there is a plentiful data about the sharing of genetic information. Nothing about this is 'anti-evolution.' If genetic change could not be shared, then how would variation come about, even for the purposes of your version of micro-evolution? Reproduction is all about sharing genetic information, with many examples that show a reproductive penalty for certain genetic results, as well.

Ok I see the problem Buddha when I re-read your post.
You seem to think those links and what I am saying is "anti-evolution" or somehow try to prove "anti-evolution", that is your words so sorry but you are looking at what I am saying then with certain fixed perspective.
Please show where I am actually anti-evolution or those links?
In fact they all support the concept of evolution but not in a way it seems you like; specifically that of Darwinism.

This is probably part of the problems or difficulties discussing Darwinism and evolution, those that outline flaws in some aspects are deemed to be anti-evolution.
Interestingly enough this was raised in one of those links.

It comes back to due diligance and having a complete and accurate model-understanding-knowledge of the subject before conclusively making scientific factual statements (which is if we are honest Darwinism misses out on and I need to repeat is layed out perfectly clear in those links I provided).

And yes your right the sharing of genetic information is not anti-evolution, but it is critical of darwinism as per the links (that you called the writers paps even though they presented or discussed exactly the concept of genetic sharing and its implications with regards to Darwinism and how it shapes our understanding of evolution), and also the previous post of mine regarding genomics.
In other words when I said our current understanding of evolution as per presented still by the Darwinism model is flawed, biased, and politically motivated by some agenda groups - just in same way this could be argued about certain religious groups.
Hence this comes back to both requiring belief, and this is what scientists accept that there is a belief element required in evolution when taking it from the Origins of Species.
Even the introduction of the 1976 (I think) book from a scientist stated this, and now modern genetics-genomics show that we do not have an ideal or even partial ideal model explaining evolution from goo to human species in a scientifically satisfactory fashion.

From the introduction in the origins of species by L.Harrison Matthews:

Quote:
"belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to the belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present has been capable of proof'.

Again it also does not help that no missing link fossil has ever been found linking apes and humans.
Am I bashing evolution?
No, just pointing out its wrong for anyone to draw conclusion of evolution as per Darwinism, or incorrectly state we know the mechanisms of evolution and can show how life evolved accurately (when in reality it only works for minor or limited sequential steps).

Anything else is theory or conjecture, and therefore debatable and up for counter arguments, until we learn more.

Cheers
Orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Given the astronomical odds of the specific sperm that lead to your creation, it is likely a statistical impossibility that you exist, according to your mathematicians.

In addition to God, have you another hypothesis for this so called 'intelligent' design?

Interesting point with the view that sperm and pregnancy is statistically impossible according to mathematics, where did you read that?
Thanks
Orb

Just look at the odds. It's as impossible as evolution.

And I cannot let this go, sorry.
I have to disagree, what mathematical factors and weighting did you use to reach this conclusion?
Bear in mind mathematics has been used in depth with regards to evolution and applying it specifically to the biology aspect.
Bearing in mind the mathematic based link article I provided had 80 external reference sources.
I admit I am not 100% happy with the page (its far from perfect and is biased IMO and funny enough also has the author banned from RichardDawkins website) but it outlines and captures a lot of reference sources that are applicable.
Link here again:
http://darwinsmaths.com/

Thanks
Orb

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Purely for the sake of goofing off, and not being argumentative...an example of you being statistically impossible.

Leaving aside the number of times your parents had sex in order to conceive you, the act that created you likely involved about 280 million sperm, only one of which had a true happy ending by meeting one of your mom's eggs.

We can choose from many egg stats: A woman has the maximum number of potential eggs (primary oocytes) while still a fetus, more than 7 million. By birth the number has fallen to 1 or 2 million, and by puberty to about 300,000. Only 300 to 400 reach maturity.

So, let's say one in a million was the exact egg that made you, since we can't know which of the million will be ovulated in the future.

So, if we were to say some decades ago, what are the odds of exactly you happening, we're talking one in 280 million meeting one in a million.

About 280 X 10 to the 12th.

Now, if we go back just to your great grandparents - we face four generations of those long odds if we are looking at the odds of creating specifically you.

280 x 10 to the 12th (call it 2.8 x ten to the 14th) for four exact generations were required to produce you.

61 x 10 to 56th just to be able to state the odds of your exact great grandparents mating and producing your exact DNA profile.

No way can those odds have been overcome to lead in so few generations to the miracle that is you.

Take those odds back to the day humans were intelligently designed and the odds are so long that in the entire Universe if all creatures all reproduced every day, you should never have been able to exist.

You are statistically impossible!

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
http://darwinsmaths.com/

Citing a quacked site doesn't prove anything but the fact that you don't really grok the statistics, or the effects of natural selection OR the remarkable sensitivity of things like homeobox genes to small changes.

What's more, you don't account for things like the way that homeobox genes for simple critters are the same genes that produce other structures in more complex critters, the fact that there are two major divisions in some very important biological molecules, one that goes along with archeobacteria and higher organisms, and the other that goes along with bacteria and most plants. Or that all of the various versions of the sugar-using cycle are the same, and that there are obvious flaws in it that pretty much show that it's NOT intellgently designed, etc.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Denying it is just plain silly. You can believe what you want about WHY evolution works, but the fact it does work is pretty clear.

I mean, look at the Cambrian explosion. This all came about because some cells in a seaweed stem died and the holes in the cell walls lined up. Oh, look, now the plant is 2 meters high instead of 4". Oh, look, it takes over everything because it shades out the competition. It's an EXPLOSION... It's "too fast to happen" except that geometric growth of a population without competition is well understood, and "fast" in these terms is still millions of years.

Sorry, you need to inform yourself substantially about evolution and then stop spreading quackery.

Silly arguments about randomness in terms of ribosomal RNA show such a basic igorance of how evolution actually works (did somebody forget about the guidance of natural selection, which cuts off nearly all of the "tree" of possible states at every selection point? I think so!) that there is no hope at all for this quacked site.

This is almost as bad as some of the ridiculous sampling theorem claims we see here.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

You'll have to excuse JJ. He wants to watch the Discovery Channel and the rest of the patients in the day room want to watch cartoons.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
You'll have to excuse JJ. He wants to watch the Discovery Channel and the rest of the patients in the day room want to watch cartoons.

Don't get me started, Lamont. You are statistically impossible, as well!

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:
You'll have to excuse JJ. He wants to watch the Discovery Channel and the rest of the patients in the day room want to watch cartoons.

Don't get me started, Lamont. You are statistically impossible, as well!

This board would suggest that some of the folks here have some interesting srGAP2 configurations, you know...

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

"Don't get me started, Lamont. You are statistically impossible, as well!"

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Purely for the sake of goofing off, and not being argumentative...an example of you being statistically impossible.

Leaving aside the number of times your parents had sex in order to conceive you, the act that created you likely involved about 280 million sperm, only one of which had a true happy ending by meeting one of your mom's eggs.

We can choose from many egg stats: A woman has the maximum number of potential eggs (primary oocytes) while still a fetus, more than 7 million. By birth the number has fallen to 1 or 2 million, and by puberty to about 300,000. Only 300 to 400 reach maturity.

So, let's say one in a million was the exact egg that made you, since we can't know which of the million will be ovulated in the future.

So, if we were to say some decades ago, what are the odds of exactly you happening, we're talking one in 280 million meeting one in a million.

About 280 X 10 to the 12th.

Now, if we go back just to your great grandparents - we face four generations of those long odds if we are looking at the odds of creating specifically you.

280 x 10 to the 12th (call it 2.8 x ten to the 14th) for four exact generations were required to produce you.

61 x 10 to 56th just to be able to state the odds of your exact great grandparents mating and producing your exact DNA profile.

No way can those odds have been overcome to lead in so few generations to the miracle that is you.

Take those odds back to the day humans were intelligently designed and the odds are so long that in the entire Universe if all creatures all reproduced every day, you should never have been able to exist.

You are statistically impossible!


Back from a busy week.

Hehe sorry that I pushed you for an answer, but there is a reason as I needed to see if you were applying a different rule when arguing the case about darwinsmaths, and it nicely brings us back round to Kurt Godel.

You did the same trick as I did earlier on, that is by taking a model/axiom and apply it to the real world and apply relevant associations.
When we do this, we get an interesting discussion and point because it shows that as you say we are statistically impossible
To me, this touches on Kurt's view and proposal that Omega-Theory of Everything is not mathematically possible, coming from and expanding upon his Incompleteness Theorem.

I guess this is the source of his considerations that led to his views with regards of proving Darwin's Origin of Species in terms of mathematics, hence why it can be argued strongly that no scientist should ever use statistics-chance for saying this is how we came to be the modern human species.
Interestingly many scientist-bioligists try to argue that Kurt's mathematic knowledge should not be applied to evolution (other biologists-scientist disagree), and yet they then use mathematics chance as an answer on how we came about.
Ah it amuses me, and adds to the joys of the philosophical discussion with regards to Darwinism, especially when you get some so closed minded the thought of discussing this is beyond acceptance (JJ comes to mind here and I bet he is not the life and soul of any type of debate that raises more questions than it answers).

Anyway enough of JJ as this is not a discussion about his bias

So while I do not fully agree with the darwinsmaths site and I agree he has a potential bias-agenda, he specifically tried to limit the potential issues of Omega-TOE by looking at a specific and focused-controlled model; this being the age of the earth (gives us a specific finite time) for evolution to change from soup to the diverse species and also modern humans looking at it from genomics.
To assist his process, he also has taken the effort to include external sources to assist his proposal.
I use the word assist as the sources are used to prove his argument, but then those of Darwinism do just the same anyway.
And caught in the middle are those that see the flaws raised with Darwinism and also Creatinism.

And this comes back to the point of; Global Warming and what may be an agenda by scientists to use data that reflects, or shock "assists" their argument.
Now Russia is stating that only parts of their warming data was used by those pushing the case of global warming, ofcourse Russia's agenda is for us all to keep burning gas for energy

Buddha, the more you will discuss this the more it comes back to showing that chance does not occur as there is no way mathematically that we exist; the joys of Omega and Theory of Everything.
That sums up Kurt's discussions and also I think even Einstein while not believing in a God felt concerned about Darwinism from a mathematical-science perspective (not sure if this came around from his discussions with Kurt).

But then there can be philosophical disagreement even on this with split camp between experts, and again this comes back to my point that there is no agreement as it is possible to argue a counter case (as I said much earlier).
Hence why the points I raised and provided links on are just some clear examples of what is questionable even if you decide to ignore darwinsmaths (although the external links provided are interesting anyway).
In fact the discussion link I provided, if I remember correctly they say in their discussion that it is very difficult to argue against some of the fundamental scientific points Creationists have started to use against Darwinism, ironically though this does not help to support their view of a God as they see it.
So there conclusion must be; there is no conclusion and those that attempt to do so are showing their bias; JJ thats you bud

Happy Christmas to ya and everyone, including Mr know it all JJ

Cheers
Orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:
You'll have to excuse JJ. He wants to watch the Discovery Channel and the rest of the patients in the day room want to watch cartoons.

Don't get me started, Lamont. You are statistically impossible, as well!

Indeed, so you now are proving Darwinism is wrong as he relies upon chance with randomness.

Tongue in cheek response don't mind me hahaha
Cheers
Orbs

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
You'll have to excuse JJ. He wants to watch the Discovery Channel and the rest of the patients in the day room want to watch cartoons.

I find it interesting don't you that he chooses just the one link he can insult
However we could do a comparison between Darwinsmaths and JJ so lets have a bit of fun;
Ok here goes:
a) Uses a methodology to make their point:
Darwinsmaths 1 , JJ 0

b) Uses external sources
Darwinsmaths 2 , JJ 0

c) Civil and not insultive to those who disagree on this subject
Darwinsmaths 3, JJ 0

d) Actually present some content that is relevant
Darwinsmaths 4, JJ 0

Oh dear looks like JJ is in trouble so lets help him out;

e) Biased
Darwinsmaths 5 , JJ 1

Woot JJ got 1 in the end

Merry Christmas to you all (hope JJ does not moan about this now haha)

Cheers
Orb

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

I like your style. Merry Christmas.

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

There is a counter argument for everything we "believe" we know and understand about evolution.
In other words there is no conclusive evidence, anyone taking that step is then using bias by deciding the counter argument is wrong by assumption, belief because we do not have all the facts.

And this is the underlying fallacy of your various responses.

Even though we don't know *everything,* we can know some things.

Also, as a Christian I'm troubled by the need of some to 'prove' that God exists by attacking established, settled science.

The last time I looked, the essence of Christian belief is *faith.*

s.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Actually, this started the other way around. The Bible was used to prove Darwinism was sound. Get your shit in one sock. If you're a Christian than there is no need to state as such. It's like stating you're a scientist. It don't mean shit in this thread.

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Nah.

Actually, it goes right to the heart of a lot of what's being argued about here. FWIW, I read the entire thread before posting, and though I don't have the lightning fast sh**-stirring reflexes that you do, my point stands.

s.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading