|
|
|
Big Daddy Bob
Sockpuppet/BANNED
6 Posts |
 Posted - 10/21/2007 : 15:23:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
He was not subjected to anything but a strong argument. Do you prefer us to patronize young people?
|
It reads like the beginnings of indoctrination. The first step was to belittle opposing thoughts. Second step was to state he was not part of this group, but he could be if he follows instruction. Third step was to ingratiate. A rather juvenile attempt by H. Humbert, but the kid is just 13.
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 15:45:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
It reads like the beginnings of indoctrination. |
Explaining how science doesn't indoctrinate people sounds like indoctrination to you? Then you must have an ax to grind, since it clearly doesn't.
| The first step was to belittle opposing thoughts. |
Creationism is universally rejected in the scientific community. Evolution enjoys widespread consensus. There is no need to sugarcoat such facts.
| Second step was to state he was not part of this group, but he could be if he follows instruction. |
No, that was simply an attempt to correct a misunderstanding. Someone who denies evolution would not be a skeptic by skeptical standards any more than someone who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed could be a Christian. It's simply wrong.
| Third step was to ingratiate. A rather juvenile attempt by H. Humbert, but the kid is just 13. |
I was told to be nicer.
Also, I doubt the "kid" is 13, but even if so, age would have zero bearing on my approach. If a person is capable of discussing HOX genes, then that person is capable of understanding that creationism is unsubstantiated pseudo-scientific propaganda.
I fail to see how any of this amounts to bullying, however, and find your accusation quite unfounded. There just isn't anything substantial to your criticisms, and so I suspect you are simply a creationist who doesn't enjoy being reminded that you are wrong. That's unfortunate for you.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/21/2007 15:47:51 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 17:22:22 [Permalink]
|
HH, you must admit you did extrapolate. The quote you responded to, "I will admit that some of this skepticism does stem from my theistic upbringing." you replied, "Yes, scientific disinformation, especially about biology, is quite widespread in religious circles. I wish you the best in overcoming whatever lies with which were indoctrinated." How did you come to such a conclusion that Coelacanth was in fact indoctrinated? He has yet to state what he believes, whether or not he actually agrees with evolution. I don't see how you could ever make a conclusion on someones knowledge of biology from 4 sentences. That is quite ridiculous, isn't it?
Rather, instead what should be done is to try to get Coelacanth to explain more what he is skeptical about, what he doubts about the evidence for evolution in this specific case. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 17:22:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
Originally posted by HalfMooner
He was not subjected to anything but a strong argument. Do you prefer us to patronize young people?
|
It reads like the beginnings of indoctrination. The first step was to belittle opposing thoughts. Second step was to state he was not part of this group, but he could be if he follows instruction. Third step was to ingratiate. A rather juvenile attempt by H. Humbert, but the kid is just 13.
|
I don't see it as pre-indoctrination, but to each his own.
Also, I'm pretty sure 13 is what your age shows up as if you don't put anything in at registration. (I'm putting a note over here about this.
Regardless of his/her age Coelacanth is probably quite capable of dealing with different approaches and personality types, or ought to learn to be if hanging around in virtual communities like SFN is a favourite past time.
All that aside, don't consider this to be telling me you shouldn't have said what you did, you should (civilly) jump on people you think are behaving inappropriately, if you feel inclined to do so. It might well have been that you were the first one to notice H. Humbert's subversive behaviour. If the evidence shows otherwise, though, you should be prepared to adjust your conclusion.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 18:28:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
How did you come to such a conclusion that Coelacanth was in fact indoctrinated? |
I didn't. I tried to phrase my comment in such a way that it allowed for either possibility, thus my use of "whatever lies," meaning if lies were in fact used. Perhaps I could have said it better.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 18:29:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
The first step was to belittle opposing thoughts. |
Since when should scientific disinformation be given the same respect as an opposing scientific thought, of which there are none with regard to the importance of genetic evidence to answering questions about evolution?| Second step was to state he was not part of this group, but he could be if he follows instruction. |
The same is true of the "people who can swim" group and the "people who are concert violinists" group. Do you consider the instructors of such people to be indoctrinating them, or teaching them? Science and skepticism aren't belief systems, they're skill sets.| Third step was to ingratiate. A rather juvenile attempt by H. Humbert, but the kid is just 13. |
"You're not now a concert violinist, but we could teach you if you're interested." Juvenile? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 01:30:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I will admit that some of this skepticism does stem from my theistic upbringing.
|
Yes, scientific disinformation, especially about biology, is quite widespread in religious circles. I wish you the best in overcoming whatever lies with which were indoctrinated. That's the good part about science, indoctrination is never required. If you put in the effort to understand it, you can see that every scientific conclusion directly and logically follows from the best evidence available. You will never be asked to believe anything on faith. If anyone ever tells you that some science requires faith, then you can be certain that person has no understanding of science.
And I would suggest that you are not a skeptic, at least not as it is defined in skeptic circles. Rather, it seems you have deficiencies in your knowledge about evolutionary biology which keep you from fully embracing the theory of evolution. In which case, you should simply admit your ignorance on the subject. Many of the people here are more than knowledgeable enough and willing to answer any honest inquiry on the subject.
Best of luck to you. And welcome to the SFN, Coelacanth. |
Thanks for the... odd welcome. That has to be the most voracious welcome I've ever received lol, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess.
Be that as it may, what has led you to the supposition that I've been misinformed about evolution or science. I do hope, for your sake, it's not the fact I'm theist. That would be a little narrow-minded. I'm well informed on the workings of evolution and I am indeed a skeptic. Maybe not in the definition of you and perhaps some of your friends have, but I am in a dictionary definition a skeptic.
And in case you're skeptical (pun intended), here you go.
Skeptic
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
–adjective
5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
Also, science doesn't intend to indoctrinate, yet people do. In the end, people are indoctrinated by it.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I've always had this skepticism for DNA/Gene comparison and what it brings more to the theory that can't be observed from a physical level. |
If DNA didn't closely match morphology, modern evolutionary theory (and specifically common descent) would be very wrong. Because it does match very well, we can use features of DNA to tell us something about the past.
For example, humans and chimps share certain endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) that no other animals have - not even gorillas. This tells us that the species that acquired these ERVs were very recent - sometime between the split with gorillas and the split with chimps.
On the other hand, HOX genes are widespread and extremely similar throughout all animals (plants and fungi have their own, different HOX genes), suggesting that these genes are very, very old.
Morphology doesn't really suggest that spiders and dogs are related. HOX genes do.
|
Wow... I must have missed this post.
Yes ERVs were an interesting development in Gene comparison research. I originally thought it was direct evidence of evolution, but then the story that followed that resembles what happened with other aspects of evolution such as vestigially. Vestigial organs were also considered proof of evolution by many once, but then all these supposed vestigial organs were found to actually have functions, which we could probably live without, but we could live without fingerprints, our philltrum or even one of our fingers. The same story seems to be with ERVs as functions for ERVs are being found, some of them being detrimental. I've even read articles which says they could be pro-selective.
Genetics is a deep subject, it's easy to look at the surface of things an jump to conlusions, but then these are just speculations in the end, right?
Background mutations are also an issue in gene comparison, though the thought that this is evidence of evolution is based upon the assumption that evolution happened. Genes appearing similar to each other don't really prove anything. Our genome is 94% (it keeps changing) identical with Chimps. Wouldn't that be enough to assume evolution happened already? But no... Chimps and Humans are already very much alike on a physical level (homology etc), so in essence it proves nothing.
Gene comparison is very useful for displaying precision on how much alike we are to another creature and if you believe evolution happened, then it will show to you how much we are related to that creature, whereas if you're a theist it will just be a demonstration of how god doesn't differentiate between creation on a physical level and a molecular one.
In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe.
Please note: When I say I read an article, I mean articles written by evolutionists, for some reason people seem to assume that creationists only read creationist articles and evolutionists only read evolutionist articles.
I actually rarely read Creationist articles, quite frankly I don't trust them.
Originally posted by Ricky
It would take quite a cosmic coincidence for two species to independently develop similar genes. Since we find such similarities in all different forms of life, I don't believe it to be rational to simply call it a cosmic coincidence. There must be something else going on. Evolution would be a perfect explanation for why this happens, and I see no other potential theory.
|
There are other quite mad (and some rational) theories out there of how it could be, but I think your problem is that you can not see any other possibility than evolution.
Always remember to be open-minded, but open-mindedness does not mean gullibility. I.e. you can accept the idea, but you don't have to believe it.
Some ideas however are unacceptable.
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
Could this be called strong-arming?
Quite rude if you ask me.
|
Thanks for the concern Bob, however I am quite capable of dealing with ignorance.
Thanks for the interesting conversation about my person whilst I was away people.
And no... I'm not being cynical.
Originally posted by Dave W."You're not now a concert violinist, but we could teach you if you're interested." Juvenile?
|
Actually it was more like a case of "You're not playing the same tune as us, surely you can't be a concert violinist."
Which is pretty Juvenile. |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/22/2007 01:48:30 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2007 : 02:31:30 [Permalink]
|
At one time, the "13" was a glitch in the Profiles page. At one time, we had lots of thirteen-year-olds in here. Some with grandchildren, no less.
But back to the topic. Supporting evidence can be found in the fossil record, notably in such animals as Acanthostega.
The eight toes on it's forefeet pretty much corespond to the rays of the lobe-finned fishes of the Cambrian/Devonian. That, of course, doesn't make for an air-tight argument, but with the genetics tossed in, it becomes a little more solid and a lot more interesting.
Welcome to SFN, Big Daddy Bob & Lobe-fin Coelacanth!
Speaking of which, here's a good site concerning "Ol' Four Legs!" I suggest buying the tee shirt.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/22/2007 02:34:30 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2007 : 03:01:01 [Permalink]
|
Sorry; couldn't resist!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 03:28:32 [Permalink]
|
Evolution doesn't always know best lol, I guess it's safe to say that if evolution did happen. Similar scenarios probably took place. Hence the extinction events...
But anyways, regarding the tetrapods, you do know that the tetrapods aren't like any fish we know though right? Some have fish like attributes, but then they do both live in water and it is said that the Human embryo has some fish-like attributes, such as gill slits... so it still a little sketchy form me.
Although, it is supposed to be sketchy I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 03:52:53 [Permalink]
|
I'll have a more complete response, later.Originally posted by Coelacanth
Vestigial organs were also considered proof of evolution by many once, but then all these supposed vestigial organs were found to actually have functions... |
And here we have a clear case of you swallowing some disinformation hook, line and sinker. "Vestigal" has never meant "has no function."
This is not a case where "vestigal organs have no function" is an opposing line of thought currently employed by some scientists somewhere. "Vestigal organs have no function" is nothing more than a creationist caricature of evolutionary theory fabricated out of nothing in order to discredit the current science. The actual scientific position on vestigal organs (indeed, the definition of the word, "vestigal") doesn't provide any sort of argument against evolution if function is found, so the professional creationists invented this "have no function" canard decades ago only for it to be rebutted decades ago, but they continue to abuse it and make themselves look silly.
And now you, Coelacanth, appear to be parroting them without comprehending what they (or the biologists) are really saying. And this appears to be your entire rebuttal to a discussion of ERVs and HOX genes - to say, "we really don't know anything." Twice.| Actually it was more like a case of "You're not playing the same tune as us, surely you can't be a concert violinist." |
The tune you're playing, above, says "I think concert violinists are idiots." Why would you participate in a forum full of them, then? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 04:10:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'll have a more complete response, later.Originally posted by Coelacanth
Vestigial organs were also considered proof of evolution by many once, but then all these supposed vestigial organs were found to actually have functions... |
And here we have a clear case of you swallowing some disinformation hook, line and sinker. "Vestigal" has never meant "has no function."
This is not a case where "vestigal organs have no function" is an opposing line of thought currently employed by some scientists somewhere. "Vestigal organs have no function" is nothing more than a creationist caricature of evolutionary theory fabricated out of nothing in order to discredit the current science. The actual scientific position on vestigal organs (indeed, the definition of the word, "vestigal") doesn't provide any sort of argument against evolution if function is found, so the professional creationists invented this "have no function" canard decades ago only for it to be rebutted decades ago, but they continue to abuse it and make themselves look silly.
And now you, Coelacanth, appear to be parroting them without comprehending what they (or the biologists) are really saying. And this appears to be your entire rebuttal to a discussion of ERVs and HOX genes - to say, "we really don't know anything." Twice. |
No... you need to read my post again. I didn't say vestigial meant "having no function" at all. I only said that they were considered proof of evolution by many once until functions were found.
I read an article on talk-origins (good website, if you don't know of it) explaining exactly how vestigial doesn't mean functionless.
Please don't assume I mean things that I don't say. People do that to me often it can get quite monotonous.
| Actually it was more like a case of "You're not playing the same tune as us, surely you can't be a concert violinist." |
The tune you're playing, above, says "I think concert violinists are idiots." Why would you participate in a forum full of them, then?
|
I was just playing a tune for the other violinists to hear and give me their thoughts. It's funny, because generally when a good violinist hears a random violinist play the violin in a tune he hasn't particularly heard he respects that person and admires the tune for it's talent, whether he likes it or not, but if he's arrogant he feels the other tune is better than his or that people may perceive it as better, he becomes full of pride, and the thought that the new person thinks he's better than him fills his mind.
Anyway. On topic... I re-read the original article which states.
The development of fingers and toes in embryos of land animals is closely linked to a gene called Hoxd13. This gene orchestrates a series of developmental steps involving the sequential release of certain proteins that affects the outer part of the limb and the digits but not the arm bones. It was once thought that digit development was unique to tetrapods, creatures that have, or once had, fingers and toes.
The new findings suggest this is not the case. Johanson and her colleagues found that the genes involved in creating the Australian lungfish's fins made proteins in a nearly identical pattern as in tetrapods, by acting on the small fin bones but not the rest of the limb.
Which adds to what I was saying about the difference between tetrapods and fish.
Very interesting, I'll certainly be following this study. |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/22/2007 04:46:56 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 05:43:24 [Permalink]
|
Just a couple of thoughts that I've kicked around in here before.
The mistake virtually all creationists, and the IDemented as well, make is that they think of evolution as some sort of driving force. This is not the case. A driving force by definition needs a destination, and evolution has none such; neither direction nor goal. Evolution only works in the genetic programing of individuals within a species by way of random mutations. This is not to say that it's all random, no. The individual gets the mutations, most of which are neutral; some few bad, some few good. The bad ones get weeded out pretty quickly; the good ones, the ones that shape the individual to it's enviornment, remain. As the individual reproduces, it most likely passes these mutations along. In due course, the population gets the mutation because the individuals having it are more likely to survive longer and reproduce more often. And thus, the population, not the individual, evolves.
This is not a god-like force. It is merely a subtle part of the biological make up of all species.
We are very familiar with Talk Origins. It is the best reference for the ToE on line, especally for the layman.
Did you know that snakes too, are tetrapods? 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 05:45:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Please don't assume I mean things that I don't say. |
You're correct. I apologize.| People do that to me often it can get quite monotonous. |
Ditto, which makes my offense all the worse.
I'll try to get things correct in a follow-up, later. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2007 : 06:46:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Be that as it may, what has led you to the supposition that I've been misinformed about evolution or science. I do hope, for your sake, it's not the fact I'm theist. That would be a little narrow-minded. |
Oh? And why do you say that? Quite frankly, there is a lot of disinformation and anti-evolution propaganda pushed in religious circles. And an evolution denier who doesn't base his disbelief on religious considerations is practically unheard of. One would have to be daft to ignore the connection. So, yes, it has everything to do with the fact that you are a theist. Not all theists are evolution deniers, but practically all evolution deniers are theists. And I say "practically" all because I suppose it is theoretically possible for an evolution denier to be nonreligious and simply insane, although I've never met such a hypothetical person. Every evolution denier I've ever talked to has been religious, and their reservations in accepting biological science was based on misguided religious considerations. Every one.
Besides, you were the one who voluntarily admitted as much: "I will admit that some of this skepticism does stem from my theistic upbringing."
| I'm well informed on the workings of evolution and I am indeed a skeptic. Maybe not in the definition of you and perhaps some of your friends have, but I am in a dictionary definition a skeptic. |
No, I know. I'm just informing you, since you're on a skeptic site and all, that we use a different definition than the dictionary. Skeptic has a very specific meaning in skeptic circles, one perhaps not obvious to outsiders. I thought perhaps you might actually be interested in what it is that goes on here. Apparently not.
| Also, science doesn't intend to indoctrinate, yet people do. In the end, people are indoctrinated by it. |
Please explain/defend this statement. How are people "indoctrinated" by science?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/22/2007 07:15:00 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
