Question for people that believe in evolution

[Jose Fly]

You're just repeating yourself.

Yup, because you can't do anything more than argue via bald assertion.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes, you did. Right here.



All scientists use the scientific method... in theory anyway.

Oh for cripes sake...:banghead3 .

Forget it...

 

[Morse]

Oh for cripes sake...:banghead3 .

Forget it...

He is right Jose_Fly, not all scientists use the scientific method.

Christian Scientists don't.

 

[Quiddity]

Yup, because you can't do anything more than argue via bald assertion.

When you are willing to put your ego to the side for a sec....come back and read what I was actually saying.

Have a nice day.

 

[Venatoris]

I think RF should institute an anti-frubal system.

 

[Jose Fly]

He is right Jose_Fly, not all scientists use the scientific method.

Christian Scientists don't.

Well....to be fair (even though I get the joke), there are are all sorts of scientists who happen to be Christian (as well as adherents to just about every religion there is), and apparently according to Victor, they're part of this "naturalized epistemology" that dominates modern science.

 

[Quiddity]

Well....to be fair (even though I get the joke), there are are all sorts of scientists who happen to be Christian (as well as adherents to just about every religion there is), and apparently according to Victor, they're part of this "naturalized epistemology" that dominates modern science.

Even if I did say they were all (which I didn't) using this, apparently it wouldn't have made diddly squat of a difference to you if there hasn't been an official report on it.

 

[Quiddity]

I think RF should institute an anti-frubal system.

If I were a member of the Awards Committee, I would nominate this predicated inquiry as "Best suggestion of the Month".

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Even if I did say they were all (which I didn't) using this, apparently it wouldn't have made diddly squat of a difference to you if there hasn't been an official report on it.

You are equating assertions, arguments, opinions, lectures made by scientists with science. Science is NOT what scientists say. It is a body of work subject to specific rules.

You actually have a point. But you have screwed up the presentation of it. Largely because YOUR glasses got in the way of what you were trying to show.

 

[Jose Fly]

Even if I did say they were all (which I didn't) using this, apparently it wouldn't have made diddly squat of a difference to you if there hasn't been an official report on it.

The problem is Victor, you asserted:

"The scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God."

If you're going to assert that a community as large and diverse as science is "grossly infiltrated" with something, you'd better offer a bit more than two isolated examples. Further, you'd better not conflate Stenger's argument against a specific god, with a group framework that dictates there are no gods of any type. And you'd better not do that via selective quoting....

...otherwise people might think you were being a bit shady and dishonest.

 

[Quiddity]

The problem is Victor, you asserted:

"The scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God."

If you're going to assert that a community as large and diverse as science is "grossly infiltrated" with something, you'd better offer a bit more than two isolated examples. Further, you'd better not conflate Stenger's argument against a specific god, with a group framework that dictates there are no gods of any type. And you'd better not do that via selective quoting....

...otherwise people might think you were being a bit shady and dishonest.

Yeah...that's why I gave links...right?

You see, I thought this whole time you didn't really care how many scientist I managed to quote. Because as I said, you are looking for a publication.

Now, I'm just conflating the claim? (valid objection)

I'm not even sure if you know what it is you want.

I'm not going in circles with you again.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah...that's why I gave links...right?

You gave links to two people arguing against the existence of specific types of gods, and/or specific claims about gods. That is not at all the same as the community of science being "infiltrated with an epistemology" of "the universe can show no evidence for God". Thus, your citations don't support your accusation, both in terms of substance and quantity.

You see, I thought this whole time you didn't really care how many scientist I managed to quote. Because as I said, you are looking for a publication.

That relates to your assertion that the existence/non-existence of gods is "science". The fact that you are unable to cite a single published scientific article that even broaches the subject is reason to reject your assertion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

have any of you read this article? Problems in Protein Evolution

what do you think?

Hi ftv,

The article makes many inaccurate statements right off the bat. But at the end of the day, the results of experiments trump any theoretical arguments we might make, and many experiments have grown generations of bacteria and applied selection pressure and observed the evolution of different proteins. In fact that is how we make novel proteins with novel functions today.

But just to correct some of the misstatements in the article: within the space of possible amino acid sequences, there is actually a very large space of sequences that result in the same fold (the same tertiary structure). Proteins can differ in their amino acid sequence by 85% and still have the same fold. So an enormous amount of diversity is available which preserves the same fold. Also, each of these folds can have multiple functions, not just one, and even though the folds are the same the functions can be different. Also, a protein does not simply "function" or "not function", there is a range of performance and a corresponding range of sequences and folds. It is true that a single mutation of a single amino acid is likely to be harmful, and therefore evolution by point mutation can be slow. Things are sped up by sexual reproduction because instead of trying out a new mutation, you are basically reshuffling and recombining parts that have already been proven to work.

These are facts that have been established by an enormous field of experimental research in protein evolution and engineering.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Back in secondary school I learned of evolution but was more of an agnostic person. I took it upon myself to get an understanding of what some christians thought about "creation" by asking them and realized that what I was being told by the religious didn't mesh with what I learned in school. For me the turning point was when a teacher (my high school biology teacher) told me that the flu virus mutates and adapts.....basically evolving. Since then I've been intrigued of the evolutionary process. Science, for me, has yielded a wealth of information toward understanding evolution. In my view it has and will stand the test of time, ridicule and scrutiny......Then again...I'm just a godless heathen... (No offense to GodlessHeathen)....

Influenza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr Spinkles]

ftv,

I recommend the book, 'Why Evolution is True'. It was written by a University of Chicago biologist and it covers all the major observations of embryo development, the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, examples of "half an eye" or "half a wing" in organisms, etc. The author also uses a couple of chapters to indulge the question of whether the fact of evolution should drive us to immorality, selfishness, etc. It's a very good read. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532

 

[Dirty Penguin]

this guy is hard to follow he talks pretty fast for me, but i think that i get the basic idea. most of which has to do with mutations and the proof that mutations happen. i have to watch these agian.

Then start with this guy.... I find him very easy to listen to and he clears up a lot of creationist misconceptions

http://www.youtube.com/user/donexodus2?blend=1&ob=4

 

[Alceste]

have any of you read this article? Problems in Protein Evolution

what do you think?

I think it's not worth reading. I checked to see where it was hosted first: the department of computer science at U of North Carolina. I'm not sure what computer science has to do with biology. Then I checked to see who wrote it so I could check their credentials - there was no author credited. Following a link I discovered it is a part of a creationist website maintained (sloppily) by a dude named David Plaisted. A quick google revealed he is a professor of computer science at UNC.

So, the writer has absolutely no relevant qualifications to comment on the field of biology. He's some random dude hosting his own crap on the server for his place of work. From the title alone it is easy enough to gather it falls into the tedious category of "creationists bashing away at a single pebble on the slope of the mountain of evidence for evolution", as if they could ever cast doubt on the theory as a whole by doing so, even if they were competent (and they never are).

Anyway, scrolling through the article I'd say I saved myself 20 minutes of wasted time. You too can save valuable minutes by checking first to see whether the writer of any given article is any more qualified to offer an opinion than your average bum off the street BEFORE you read it.

To answer the OP, Stephen Jay Gould was pretty informative, but I didn't need "convincing." I'm not a religious person and didn't attend a religious school, so being informed about the birds and the bees was a part of my upbringing. From this perspective the fact of evolution is as obvious as the fact that the earth is round, that gravity only pulls "down", that the sky on a clear day is blue, etc.

 

[Morse]

I think it's not worth reading. I checked to see where it was hosted first: the department of computer science at U of North Carolina. I'm not sure what computer science has to do with biology. Then I checked to see who wrote it so I could check their credentials - there was no author credited. Following a link I discovered it is a part of a creationist website maintained (sloppily) by a dude named David Plaisted. A quick google revealed he is a professor of computer science at UNC.

So, the writer has absolutely no relevant qualifications to comment on the field of biology. He's some random dude hosting his own crap on the server for his place of work. From the title alone it is easy enough to gather it falls into the tedious category of "creationists bashing away at a single pebble on the slope of the mountain of evidence for evolution", as if they could ever cast doubt on the theory as a whole by doing so, even if they were competent (and they never are).

Anyway, scrolling through the article I'd say I saved myself 20 minutes of wasted time. You too can save valuable minutes by checking first to see whether the writer of any given article is any more qualified to offer an opinion than your average bum off the street BEFORE you read it.

To answer the OP, Stephen Jay Gould was pretty informative, but I didn't need "convincing." I'm not a religious person and didn't attend a religious school, so being informed about the birds and the bees was a part of my upbringing. From this perspective the fact of evolution is as obvious as the fact that the earth is round, that gravity only pulls "down", that the sky on a clear day is blue, etc.

De
Bunked.

If I could frubal you a million times I would.

 

[Alceste]

De
Bunked.

If I could frubal you a million times I would.

:takeabow:why, thank you very much.

 

[Magic Man]

....

I'll take that as a "No". Thanks for your honesty, at least.