pat771s wrote:

Sophist wrote: Now what I find amusing is that the ToE is not actually that important. That's right, it's not that important. Apart from putting food on the table for some academics and natural history TV presenters it doesn't actually have any great practical significance for us? It's a nice thing to know, it places another tin pan on the Buck'a'roo of some religions, but that Donkey has been super-glued down and ain' bucking. But so what? Compared to say the scientific endevours surrounding genetics, which may well turn out to have immense practical (side)affects for us as a species the ToE is just a side show. With all due respect, you are completely wrong here. The amazing advances in genomics (and the other -omics for that matter) and bioinformatics, which do have amazing implications in medical and biotechnological research, essentially rest on the ToE. Homologous proteins as distant from humans as bacteria are studied in order to decipher the functioning of the human component. Evolutionary relationships are used to annotate new genomes- without the annotation, the genome really doesn't tell us much. A lot of what we know about basic eukaryotic (that means you, human!) genomics comes from studies on organisms like Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and it would be of no use without ToE, because there'd be no reason to suspect that a yeast would regulate genes like we do! I could provide more examples, though I wouldn't want to get the self-appointed verbosity police's panties in a bunch again.

A belief in ToE is certainly not essential in biotechnological research. A belief in a creator who used similar blueprints for similar structure is not essential either. But both beliefs are held by scientists who do this type of research.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/exogenization-vs-endogenization

Sophist wrote:

Don't mind being told that. No need with the due respect either. I'm no scientist and will always be happy to listen to true experts. Because I've got a 40w bulb for a brain just end up trying to see things in terms of the way we talk about stuff, than the stuff itself. Wasn't making myself clear again. Wasn't trying to suggest that the process Darwin et al started hasn't been useful (though might well have done reading what I wrote now sowwy), not one bit, that it didn't require us to end up looking at other things in much greater detail. That it spawned entire new fields of research. It's done all that and will do more in time I'm pretty confident. I perhaps meant that the ToE at its most broadest, that "life forms change" as a piece of general information, is in and of itself not that important now that we've established some of the things that have pragmatic use from it. All the new 'ologies and 'nomics. Again, much like our position in space is just a background bit of information compared to all the rest of modern astrophysics we're currently beavering away on. That the ToE will perhaps fall into that background category one day? Verbose is good, write as much as you like always, I just wont pretend to understand it all the time. Should never feel anything wrong with that. Especially on this forum section if any?

Thanks for the clarification. I added the due respect thing because even though I completely disagreed with what I interpreted there, I didn't want to make it sound like I have some authority or magic intelligence power- I'm just strongly disagreeing. But thank you very much for understanding that.

And you may be right in the sense you intended.

Finally, apologies if you thought that the verbosity comment was pointed at you. It wasn't. I do agree though, it's really good to be very clear and fully explain everything, especially in science.

Escutcheon wrote:

Dear Teddy, I feel pretty redundant even chiming in at all after you have been laid bare by the others, but what particular problem do you have with the ToE? You spout off with a lot of indignation, but you never address the nature of your concern. You seem to think the ToE is false, that seems clear, but you never state why you believe that. First, have you read the ToE? If you're not going to answer that question truthfully, not much point in answering at all.

Well I believe we had a Science 101 topic discussion. The brunt of it being between me and Dolorosa. I have not been laid bare. That's a ludicrous assertion. A couple slips. That's been about it. If you weren't paying attention, then it's not my fault. No mean to be rude.

Longloadr wrote:

A belief in ToE is certainly not essential in biotechnological research. A belief in a creator who used similar blueprints for similar structure is not essential either. But both beliefs are held by scientists who do this type of research. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/exogenization-vs-endogenization

I really hate doing this (I do feel bad, I swear), but I actually work in that field, and I know what I'm saying. And yes, it is essential (though it isn't a belief). In fact, your post is a perfect example of why ID/creationism is not useful as anything but a rhetorical tool. After the fact you can insist that "oh well it's a common design yayayay" but what about during an actual investigation? If life is designed, there is no reason to expect distant organisms to exhibit profound similarities. Thus, many investigations which rely on, say, the study of the function of bacterial LeuT in order to glean information about selective serotonin reuptake transporters rely on the ToE. Otherwise, why should LeuT be functionally similar to SERT? It might be under a designer, but no reason to assume it would be.

By assuming any kind of designer (unless you assumed one that created the appearance of evolution, which is quite silly), you cannot assume further. How can we investigate the nature of the designer? The mechanisms? There are no testable ways to access this. Thus, it is scientifically useless. I would wager that virtually nobody (allowing for some margin of error) in biotech is a creationist.

Sophist wrote:

Good science does not chase absolute truth

. Then what does it chase. lol. Science is a technique and way of enquiry that we use to find answers in our universe. Of course it chases absolute truth. The search for truth is embedded in the core make-up of every human being. To say what you just said is sort of dishonest. Sorry to say.

Sophist wrote:

"An evolutionary scientist". Name a specific one please. Show me where they have done this. Links to articles still welcome.

lol. Show you? How can I show you? Seriously? I think you know what I'm talking about. I think you are either playing dumb or you really just don't pay attention, sir.

Sophist wrote:

Where. Links still welcome please. Besides I thought you liked the idea of people asserting facts? Hardcore truths?

Oh give me a break. You hear it all the time. lol. It is referred to as a scientific fact, and you know it. Men like Dawkings, Hitchens, and so forth. Your textbooks will indirectly imply it, articles, and so forth.

Sophist wrote:

I don't disagree at all, we are all creatures of belief and first axioms when you boil us down. All too easy to reduce us to our most primal epistemological grunts. However, what exactly is the problem with holding a belief that has the current highest probability, in the absence of other beliefs on the topic? Is that irrational somehow?

If you are indirectly referring to ToE, then it is irrational. I find fault with your statement of it being the highest probablity. Because for starters, as I keep beating on this same drum, scientists who believe in evolution don't even agree as to how it happened. That's for starters. So I don't even really comprehend what you are talking about in regards to "highest probabilty." Highest probabilty...........of what?

Sophist wrote:

Good science is about refining belief

Wrong. Good science is about evidence. Beliefs are the interpretations alluded to that evidence. From then on, it is no longer science, but speculation, imaginative conclusion, and so forth.

Sophist wrote:

Can you tell me/us what you believe instead of it please?

It doesn't matter what I believe in. lol. Stop trying to change to the conversation.

Killerteddybear wrote:

Escutcheon wrote: Dear Teddy, I feel pretty redundant even chiming in at all after you have been laid bare by the others, but what particular problem do you have with the ToE? You spout off with a lot of indignation, but you never address the nature of your concern. You seem to think the ToE is false, that seems clear, but you never state why you believe that. First, have you read the ToE? If you're not going to answer that question truthfully, not much point in answering at all. Well I believe we had a Science 101 topic discussion. The brunt of it being between me and Dolorosa. I have not been laid bare. That's a ludicrous assertion. A couple slips. That's been about it. If you weren't paying attention, then it's not my fault. No mean to be rude.

Reading comprehension issues run amuck. You would happen to be a long-haul driver by any chance would you?

You totally avoided the main question, which was have you read about THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, or on the origin of species, or natural selection, or trait heritability, genetic drift, etc.... Have you studied any of this stuff you deny so vehemently? Again, if you can't answer that question honestly, don't bother answering at all or at the very least don't do it in this thread.

You can go start your own little basket weaving thread if you like.

Escutcheon wrote:

You totally avoided the main question, which was have you read about THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, or on the origin of species, or natural selection, or trait heritability, genetic drift, etc.... Have you studied any of this stuff you deny so vehemently? Again, if you can't answer that question honestly, don't bother answering at all or at the very least don't do it in this thread. You can go start your own little basket weaving thread if you like.

Yes... I have read and understand about ToE, origin of species, natural selection, genetic drift etc. Creationists embrace anything that that can be demonstrated by experimental science (such as natural selection, speciation, genetic drift, functional "psuedo" genes etc). We reject the religion know as ToE that is not demonstrated be experimental science.

pat771s wrote:

Longloadr wrote: A belief in ToE is certainly not essential in biotechnological research. A belief in a creator who used similar blueprints for similar structure is not essential either. But both beliefs are held by scientists who do this type of research. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/exogenization-vs-endogenization I really hate doing this (I do feel bad, I swear), but I actually work in that field, and I know what I'm saying. And yes, it is essential (though it isn't a belief). In fact, your post is a perfect example of why ID/creationism is not useful as anything but a rhetorical tool. After the fact you can insist that "oh well it's a common design yayayay" but what about during an actual investigation? If life is designed, there is no reason to expect distant organisms to exhibit profound similarities. Thus, many investigations which rely on, say, the study of the function of bacterial LeuT in order to glean information about selective serotonin reuptake transporters rely on the ToE. Otherwise, why should LeuT be functionally similar to SERT? It might be under a designer, but no reason to assume it would be. By assuming any kind of designer (unless you assumed one that created the appearance of evolution, which is quite silly), you cannot assume further. How can we investigate the nature of the designer? The mechanisms? There are no testable ways to access this. Thus, it is scientifically useless. I would wager that virtually nobody (allowing for some margin of error) in biotech is a creationist.

How many biotech creationists would you like? I think this guy qualifies?
Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. John also started two biotech enterprises derived from his research, Biolistics, Inc., and Sanford Scientific, Inc. John still holds a position at Cornell (Courtesy Associate Professor), but has largely retired from Cornell and has started a small non-profit organization, Feed My Sheep Foundation.

A scientific convert to six-day creation, his groundbreaking new book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome demonstrates why human DNA is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.
http://creation.com/john-sanford

Longloadr wrote:

pat771s wrote: Longloadr wrote: A belief in ToE is certainly not essential in biotechnological research. A belief in a creator who used similar blueprints for similar structure is not essential either. But both beliefs are held by scientists who do this type of research. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/exogenization-vs-endogenization I really hate doing this (I do feel bad, I swear), but I actually work in that field, and I know what I'm saying. And yes, it is essential (though it isn't a belief). In fact, your post is a perfect example of why ID/creationism is not useful as anything but a rhetorical tool. After the fact you can insist that "oh well it's a common design yayayay" but what about during an actual investigation? If life is designed, there is no reason to expect distant organisms to exhibit profound similarities. Thus, many investigations which rely on, say, the study of the function of bacterial LeuT in order to glean information about selective serotonin reuptake transporters rely on the ToE. Otherwise, why should LeuT be functionally similar to SERT? It might be under a designer, but no reason to assume it would be. By assuming any kind of designer (unless you assumed one that created the appearance of evolution, which is quite silly), you cannot assume further. How can we investigate the nature of the designer? The mechanisms? There are no testable ways to access this. Thus, it is scientifically useless. I would wager that virtually nobody (allowing for some margin of error) in biotech is a creationist. How many biotech creationists would you like? I think this guy qualifies? Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. John also started two biotech enterprises derived from his research, Biolistics, Inc., and Sanford Scientific, Inc. John still holds a position at Cornell (Courtesy Associate Professor), but has largely retired from Cornell and has started a small non-profit organization, Feed My Sheep Foundation. A scientific convert to six-day creation, his groundbreaking new book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome demonstrates why human DNA is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old. http://creation.com/john-sanford

Yes, he is so well thought of he is the new honorary guide of the raelian movement....along with other esteemed scientists like Madonna and Michael Jackson

http://raelianews.org/news.php?item.181.6

kudos

Killerteddybear wrote:

Then what does it chase. lol.

Reading the second part of that portion offered an answer.

Killerteddybear wrote:

lol. Show you? How can I show you? Seriously? I think you know what I'm talking about. I think you are either playing dumb or you really just don't pay attention, sir.

By providing some instances. As I requested. The more the better please.

Killerteddybear wrote:

Oh give me a break. You hear it all the time. lol. It is referred to as a scientific fact, and you know it. Men like Dawkings, Hitchens, and so forth. Your textbooks will indirectly imply it, articles, and so forth.

I'm not reading textbooks, I'm reading you. Indirect implication isn't a statement? I'd still like sufficient instances of when this is done so that you came to the conclusion that "It is asserted that evolution is fact, and "accepted" as so". As you did not qualify that sentence. Not that it is asserted or accepted by "some".

Killerteddybear wrote:

If you are indirectly referring to ToE, then it is irrational. I find fault with your statement of it being the highest probablity. Because for starters, as I keep beating on this same drum, scientists who believe in evolution don't even agree as to how it happened. That's for starters. So I don't even really comprehend what you are talking about in regards to "highest probabilty." Highest probabilty...........of what?

That is has the highest probability of being correct (for any given value of correct). That is to say it is an explanation of observable events that has the least measurable faults with it. Theories do not need to have total consensus to be used, believed in and generally accepted. Once again "Hardcore truth" is not what science is interested in.

Killerteddybear wrote:

Wrong. Good science is about evidence. Beliefs are the interpretations alluded to that evidence. From then on, it is no longer science, but speculation, imaginative conclusion, and so forth.

How do we refine belief? By collecting evidence that helps establish or refute notions. We do not ignore good evidence, in turn it shapes belief. So er...think I was right actually.

Killerteddybear wrote:

It doesn't matter what I believe in. lol. Stop trying to change to the conversation.

It matters a huge amount. Firstly because you have not given the thread any of those "specific objections" to the ToE that you alluded to earlier. Do you hold a belief structure that allows you to object to it? If so what is it? Secondly if you simply hold no beliefs whatsoever on the formation and development of life as we know it what do you care about what the rest of us are upto? In other words, why are you continually posting on the topic? Lastly. If you do hold a system of beliefs on the topic that is, actually, radically different to anything any of us have seen before then it becomes a contender for the ToE. Something we can test alongside it. That would be kinda interesting.