|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 07:53:12 [Permalink]
|
| Cough, you are the ones who wont drop the religion part, frankly we are tired of it. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2012 : 10:17:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Cough, you are the ones who wont drop the religion part, frankly we are tired of it.
|
Can you then explain why a evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is so obsessed with religion. Author of The God delusion.
Kenneth Miller another biologist said
| Miller said: Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion. |
Edited link to proper location on Miller quoting Dawkins.
Check video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mLi-UwKrLk&feature=related
One can say evolutionary scientist bring their religious biases (both for or against religion) in their interpretation of facts and theory on evolution which destroys the objectivity science requires. Therefore evolution/Darwinism and should no longer be considered scientific. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/14/2012 19:12:06 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 13:05:51 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
One can say evolutionary scientist bring their religious biases (both for or against religion) in their interpretation of facts and theory on evolution which destroys the objectivity science requires. Therefore evolution/Darwinism and should no longer be considered scientific. |
Nice try. What both Miller and Dawkins do is science when they are doing science. Disagreements about religion says nothing about the papers they write and are published in scientific journals. When they are actually doing science, they are both straight ahead scientists. Their papers either stand or fall by the process of peer review, replication and so on done by OTHER scientists. Here again you display your lack of understanding about how science works. And I really doubt that in the area of biological science, Miller and Dawkins have any significant differences on the science envolved.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 15:30:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Can you then explain why a evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is so obsessed with religion. Author of The God delusion. |
He's also an atheist. Can one not be both an atheist and an evolutionary biologist?Where and when did Miller say such a thing. He didn't say that in the video, and Googling for "Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion" returns no results. Provide a citation for this quote, jamalrapper.| One can say evolutionary scientist bring their religious biases (both for or against religion) in their interpretation of facts and theory on evolution which destroys the objectivity science requires. |
That can be said of any scientist in any field (and you do so with no evidence), and so no human being can be a scientists of any sort. Thank you for arguing against creationists like Behe being capable of science.| Therefore evolution/Darwinism and should no longer be considered scientific. |
And neither should ID, according to your logic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 19:17:53 [Permalink]
|
Correction made to link.
This is in response to DaveW request.
| DaveW wrote: Where and when did Miller say such a thing. He didn't say that in the video, and Googling for "Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion" returns no results. Provide a citation for this quote, jamalrapper. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 19:38:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Correction made to link.
This is in response to DaveW request.
| DaveW wrote: Where and when did Miller say such a thing. He didn't say that in the video, and Googling for "Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion" returns no results. Provide a citation for this quote, jamalrapper. |
|
That's it? Did you get that he talked about how both of them fundamentally agree on the science? This is again nothing more than quote mining. If you watch the whole video, what comes through is that comment is about when Dawkins talking about atheism, NOT when he's talking or writing about evolution. On evolution they both agree.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 22:59:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Correction made to link.
This is in response to DaveW request.
| DaveW wrote: Where and when did Miller say such a thing. He didn't say that in the video, and Googling for "Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion" returns no results. Provide a citation for this quote, jamalrapper. |
|
That's it? Did you get that he talked about how both of them fundamentally agree on the science? This is again nothing more than quote mining. If you watch the whole video, what comes through is that comment is about when Dawkins talking about atheism, NOT when he's talking or writing about evolution. On evolution they both agree.
|
So I was right. Miller did say "Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion."
Here Miller is more critical of Dawkins position as well as redefining evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pZRyVX9bY&feature=related |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 23:48:28 [Permalink]
|
You don't seem to be able get it.  This must be a matter outside your simple Creationist talking points.
Miller's expressed opinion about what Dawkins says on religion is interesting as a side-light, but it has nothing to do with the scientific understandings of evolution shared by those two scientists. From Wikipedia: "Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement."
Even Conservapedia says much the same about Miller:| Kenneth R. Miller is a Roman Catholic biology professor at Brown University known for arguing against many forms of creationism such as Young Earth Creationism and intelligent design. Miller gives lectures around the country and testified in both the Cobb County case (as a witness) as well as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (as an expert witness). [1] |
Simply put, for your purposes, Miller is a hostile witness because he supports real science, including evolution, and very actively condemns Intelligent Design.
What part of that can you not grasp? |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/15/2012 00:19:05 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 00:24:15 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
So I was right. Miller did say "Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion." |
Yeah. And I'm right. Pulling the quote out of context is an example of quote mining. And it's not the first time you have employed that logical fallacy in this exchange. What's odd is even after pointing out what you did, you think it's okay because you got the words right. So it's okay to lie?
How has Miller redefined evolution? What he's saying has nothing to do with the mechanisms of evolution. And he admits that what he believes about God is not scientific. And he's right. What Dawkins believes about God is not scientific either. Though I would argue that it's more rational. When either Miller or Dawkins are doing science, they are doing the same science. There is no redefinition of evolution going on there.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 10:42:19 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by HalfMooner |
| An evolutionary transition that took several billion years to occur in nature |
Several billion years is but a brief moment in time if you subscribe to the Darwinian evolutionary model.
| has happened in a laboratory, and it needed just 60 days. |
With an intelligent designer guiding the process this is nothing special and rather unimpressive. Remove the intelligent designer from starting up and guiding the processes and then it becomes impressive.
| Under artificial pressure to become larger, single-celled yeast became multicellular creatures. |
I'd be much more impressed if they could start with nothing and then come up with yeast from that nothing. Altering that which has already been created is not all that impressive to me. Bringing into existence that which previously did not exist, now you have my attention.
| That crucial step is responsible for life’s progression beyond algae and bacteria, |
He does not KNOW that.
| and while the latest work doesn’t duplicate prehistoric transitions, it could help reveal the principles guiding them. |
Could being the key word here. I think could, might and maybe are the most used words in the Darwinian evolutionist's vocabulary.
"It could help reveal the guiding principles"
"It might have happened this way"
"Or maybe it could have happened this way"
And yet they will still be so darned dogmatic when defending their could's, might's and maybe's???
Which is why I remain unimpressed. Now if you can start with nothing and create me some yeast then I will be impressed.
| It doesn’t need mystical complexity or a lot of the things that people have hypothesized — special genes, a huge genome, very unnatural conditions,” said evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano of the University of Minnesota, co-author of a study Jan. 17 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. |
But yet in the neo-Darwinian model an intelligent designer guiding the processes from start to finish is a very "unnatural condition". Now if the single-celled yeast became multicellular creatures in 60 days without the experiment being set up and guided by an intelligent designer then I would be impressed, but with a designer pulling the strings in order for the whole experiment to even take place then not so much. No designer equals no experiemnt and no multicellular creatures in 60 days. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 02/15/2012 11:13:20 |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 11:14:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
You don't seem to be able get it. This must be a matter outside your simple Creationist talking points.
Miller's expressed opinion about what Dawkins says on religion is interesting as a side-light, but it has nothing to do with the scientific understandings of evolution shared by those two scientists. From Wikipedia: "Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement."
Even Conservapedia says much the same about Miller:| Kenneth R. Miller is a Roman Catholic biology professor at Brown University known for arguing against many forms of creationism such as Young Earth Creationism and intelligent design. Miller gives lectures around the country and testified in both the Cobb County case (as a witness) as well as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (as an expert witness). [1] |
Simply put, for your purposes, Miller is a hostile witness because he supports real science, including evolution, and very actively condemns Intelligent Design.
What part of that can you not grasp?
|
You missed the entire point. Miller is a Catholic and a evolutionist biologist which is labeled as a theist evolutionist.
Dawkins is an Atheist and an evolutionist biologist. A god delusional evolutionist.
Now here is what Catholic Evolutionist are:
Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.
This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.
|
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 12:08:27 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper. I'm going to get serious now about citing. If you quote something, post a link to it. The above comes from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Bill:
With an intelligent designer guiding the process this is nothing special and rather unimpressive. Remove the intelligent designer from starting up and guiding the processes and then it becomes impressive. |
As it turned out the experiment was incredibly easy. That's to say that under natural circumstances, it's not so envolved as to require a designer. It could be happening over and over again. But outside of a lab, how would we recognize it? The problem with your criticism is there is no way to set up such an experiment without, well... setting it up. So the bar you set is impossibly high. You can choose to ignore the ease at which these single cells formed a functional multi celled organism. That's your choice. What you can't do is declare it impossible to have occurred in nature, without any intervention required, given the ease at which it was done and the results of the experiment. The fact that you still regard all transitional species as not transitional speaks volumes about your bias. So I predict that what will never happen is that no matter how much evidence there is for evolution, (and there is already 150 years of supporting evidence from multipal fields of science) that it will never be sufficient enough for you to change your mind. You deny the hard evidence that wasn't created in a lab and you deny the experimental evidence. So what's left? You're a lost cause.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 12:26:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
jamalrapper:
So I was right. Miller did say "Dawkins thinks he is doing science when he is actually bashing religion." |
Yeah. And I'm right. Pulling the quote out of context is an example of quote mining. And it's not the first time you have employed that logical fallacy in this exchange. What's odd is even after pointing out what you did, you think it's okay because you got the words right. So it's okay to lie?
How has Miller redefined evolution? What he's saying has nothing to do with the mechanisms of evolution. And he admits that what he believes about God is not scientific. And he's right. What Dawkins believes about God is not scientific either. Though I would argue that it's more rational. When either Miller or Dawkins are doing science, they are doing the same science. There is no redefinition of evolution going on there.
|
I was hoping you could demonstrate some critical inquiry Kil, maybe even some critical thinking and earn your keep as a skeptic. But disappointingly you are like the rest of the pack of passive populist defeatist. You only hear what you are told by people of some recognition and succumb to the same herd mentality of sheep. But I am not your shrink. So lets get to the science and Miller's version of it.
Miller is a Catholic and a evolutionary biologist, Dawkins is an Athiest and a evolutionary biologist. Dr. Behe is a Christian and a biologist. What they all have in common is biology. Where they all differ is who/what is behind evolution. God according to Miller, chance according to Dawkins and Intelligence according to Behe.
If evolution was a science and we have 3 professing professional scientist. Why are their views so different. You would expect all three to arrive at the same conclusion.
Here is Millers on science/evolution. Chromosome 2 proves evolution and the theory of common ancestors. He claims evolutionist predicted the presence of the missing Chromosomes in humans which is BS because it was only in 1955 that the discrepancy in Chromosome count between chimpanzees and humans was discovered.
Here is a video on UTUBE posted in 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Miller talks about the fused Chromosome 2 in humans. Where he claims if they did not have an answer or explanation for the discrepancy evolution was wrong.
| Miller said: Where is the missing pair of chromosomes. If we don't find it evolution is wrong. |
So even as late as 2007 he believed evolution could be proven wrong, and that is after a century and half of evolution propaganda.
So according to him it all hangs on this single piece of evidence, a pair of fused chromosomes identified as Chromosome 2 which accounts for the missing pair of chromosomes, where Chimpanzees have 48 pairs and humans only 46.
How scientific are his explanations for the fused Chromosomes. The basic idea is millions of years ago one of our common ancestors mutated and passed on this fused pair along with the 46 others which led to human evolution. Chimpanzees our closed relatives have similar pairs 2a and 2b to our Chromosome 2 fused pair.
This fused pair accounts for humans being so different from our closest cousins, the chimpanzee.
Now consider cows and sheep belong to the same Bovidae family similar to the hominidae group which is made up of the great apes gorillas, chimapanzes, orangutans and humans. Cows have 60 pairs of chromosomes and sheep only 54. Can the difference be found as fused chromosomes in sheep? Or some different explanation of evolution is warranted. 
We know chromosome fusion and mutations still occur today but for some strange reason it does not lead to any new evolutionary creations and most a generally harmful to the progeny or makes the host sterile.
A possible explanation since mutated chromosomes also can produce fertile host. The Chromosome 2 was passed on down the human tree as mutated/fused.
Miller claims Chromosome 2 are similar to pairs 2a and 2b of chimpanzees. but that is in location and appearance. But the actual genetic material cannot be known because even though we have sequenced the human and chimpanzee genome we still don't know what and how to interpret their functions.
There are disagreements in the scientific community on this issue so it is rather unscientific for Miller to base his understand on unfounded assumptions. But we can take it from him all the other evolutionary material are basically irrelevant because the real science is in the molecular biology and genetic field and not in evolutionary theories that looked for evidence under rocks, under moon rocks, under mars rocks and other rocky areas. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 12:43:08 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry Kil about omitting the links and citations. I just assumed I was dealing with a knowledgeable group of people who based their skepticism on what was being said and not who was saying it. That might explain why your biases are so transparent. You must have a recommended list of reading material such as (Carl Sagan). With the billions of stars and galaxies out there one has to be skeptical when told no other life exist except on earth. Or that a monkey jumping randomly on a typewriter will not eventually produce a work of Shakespeare. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/15/2012 12:46:02 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 13:14:49 [Permalink]
|
God according to Miller, chance according to Dawkins and Intelligence according to Behe. |
No no no! You are confused. Both Miller an Dawkins agree that evolution is not simply a chance occurrence. Almost all evolutionary biologists understand that when a niche opens up it will be filled. That is not chance. You are confusing natural selection with random mutation. What both Miller and Dawkins would tell you is that by way of random mutation, the mutation that will be selected for is the one that has the best chance of aiding survival of a species. That is, the opportunity (or niche) is there, which isn't random. And it will be filled. Defense mechanisms work the same way. If the need is there, by way of random mutation, a defense mechanism will evolve. There is nothing random about the need for defense, or offense or what have you. That part is not random.
Behe on the other hand believes that God is directing the show. And God is doing it, hands on! That is vastly different from what Miller and Dawkins are both saying.
jamalrapper:
Miller claims Chromosome 2 are similar to pairs 2a and 2b of chimpanzees. but that is in location and appearance. But the actual genetic material cannot be known because even though we have sequenced the human and chimpanzee genome we still don't know what and how to interpret their functions. |
We know that no genes were lost. And this kind of transfer of genes is rather common in nature. There is little disagreement that the genes are not the same. And it is not unscientific to infer a conclusion. All conclusions in science are held on a tentative bases.
Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
