Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
HILL-arious!! Say what you want, those guys can come up with some clever put-downs. "Doesn't know squat about nachos?" Come on... That's golden!! Where's the quotes thread when you need it???
I suppose I should say something worthwhile to make up for my jockish reaction above...
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
GaryGaulin, I did not (at least I hope) call you a religious nutter or with any other names. All I posted considered your initial post and your claim that a top scientist needs to be religious. Also, I mentioned that religion is like a contageous disease, because it gets passed on from people to people and has many bad effects. This either wasn't aimed at you personally, since I didn't know what your religious views were (if there were any).
Then, to Biomom, I think that if a university level professor belives in god it just displays some degree of lack of judgement and rational thought, but doesn't necessarily prevent the professor from doing their job properly. However, if such a professor believes in creationism, that is an outright sign of complete incompetence and such a person should never hold such an important position. This is especially true with professors of natural sciences, but applies to any professor-level scientist and teacher. Like Jyaron already mentioned, if a researcher of that level manages to a) ignore all the evidence pointing towards natural selection and evolution and b) chooses to belive in something that has no evidence whatsoever, they are not worth called a scientist at all, and should never hold a professorship (regardless of their field).
Thank you for such civil replies! This is a more serious forum anyway. Place for me to get away from where it is always total chaos to help restore me back to some sanity.
The hard part of eliminating biases is showing where it exists which of course makes one somewhat of an outcast in some science circles like the one above where I was even banished for two weeks for not stopping my insisting that even though it is as ID as it obviously is the theory I have been working on for just about all of my life is scientific.
When all religious bias is removed for either side the phrase "intelligent cause" is limited to what evidence supports such as "emergence" what the Discovery Institute stated as the premise of the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" very well describes what is on the blog that follows to evidence that kind of "intelligent cause" not a magical Santa Claus sort of thing.
Ultimate goal that goes into how consciousness works and beyond, which keeps it going on and on into the future. Which is good for a theory to have.
Where I rename the theory to something else then write out what the premise adds it becomes sneaking ID into the classroom under another name. I seriously had only had one choice what to do, accept that I was writing the intelligence theory the ID movement described in their premise even though I didn't know about it until the Kansas School Board hearing gave the Discovery Institute what it needed to start the controversy.
In the scientific method that I use and teach to others on the internet as far as science is concerned there is no unexplainable "supernatural" there is just the "unknown" all of which can in time be understood in enough detail that we can better answer the "big questions" we all have. Invoking forces beyond scientific investigation is here impossible, there are none to begin with.
Eastern culture has Prophet Muhammad describing how learning how living things work keeps everyone in search of the Creator without harming religion. This scientific method is literally sacred to Islam, so there is no problem at all explaining it to their scientists. PNAS is now a hero for a couple of very science shaking papers that brought it back to religion winning the science battle for a change which proves science is actually keeping the search for the Creator going for Muslims too. We otherwise get more dead in Nigeria and beyond against "western science" that is being represented by what you saw in my swear filled sample I showed of it. Thankfully some of the creativity is kinda hilarious in a way that it is easy to see they sure did not win any points hurling such poop.
The rest of the scientific method I explain makes the best of all the peer-review possible to keep the theory getting stronger all the time. Some of the best ideas came from the Physics forum where along with the rest have to proudly display the negative rating and endure the abuse. Can say, it proves that the scientific method uses their enemy to their own demise without anyone getting physically hurt but severe humiliation may occur which forces them to reason. As long as we learn from our mistakes then search on like responsible scientists being wrong is easily forgiven, although some may have to work hard to make amends after representing science in a way that real scientists detest.
I have had my times where I doubted ever finding anything of a Creator through science and like Albert Einstein saw it as teaching religion a thing or two too, because it does. But none really miss the details that no longer make sense after knowing so we win, with in time world clergy glad we did. Having this struggle going on worth writing about right there shows the religious side is working on them. Swings of uncertainty are expected. We change with time from what we learn. Have to look at all they write to find what took great courage for a scientist to say even back then.
When properly explained the religions of the world wants to look over the biologist's shoulder taking notes. And I know PNAS and all here would rather that than war against it. So at least the NAS looks good and I have to say appreciate their papers being online open access. When it is what Islam likes then with the click of a mouse is light-speed on the way to Mecca. Or Dover where it is the same search for the Creator there too. End up with PNAS papers and all sorts of other good research on its way to Sunday School teachers where from there even grade school students will all know that ahead of their teasing peers they will soon have to face when school begins again soon. Have to hope they can actually prove they are the ones to rule their science classroom, with science. Unprepared teachers should have a hard time keeping up with them.
All in all there is no "science-stopper" in religion that I know of. Sometimes it advances science. The religious minded might even soon show where the stoppers really were. Which helps show why religion is not all bad for science like some think it is and why so many theories come from the religious minded.
Ok, I'll rephrase. Religion per se does not necessarily hinder science, but how people interprepet it very often does - that is what matters and that is what religion is all about in the end. Examples of this can include cases such as claiming that a ten-cell embryo has a soul and as such cannot be used for scientific purposes, or muslim religious leaders suppressing the freedom of speech and women's rights so badly that they outright affect negatively to the capability of those nations to do top-notch science, or, in history, Christian church trying to burn everyone alive who dared to oppose them - Galileo was just a famous example.
What comes to the search for a creator of some sort: that in itself is not unscientifical, of course. It is completely fine to try to look for alternative ways to explain how life begun, for example, and one can even doubt evolution if they want. But a true scientist should admit that whith current knowledge and evidence we have the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported, the chance that we or our ancestors or life on Earth was created by aliens is diminishingly small, and that the claim that a god has created us has no scientific basis whatsoever, as it is completely untestable anyway.
So, it is good that some people think about alternative ways to explain our existence as long as they don't claim evolution to be a lie or deliberately mislead people. It is arrogant to not not give credit to the evidence evolutionary scientists have gathered, whether a person themselves was looking for alternative theories or not. Although in my opinion the evidence of evolution is nowadays about as solid as evidence of gravity, and not too many persons anymore find it necessary to try to find alternative explanations for falling apples... but it's not unscientifical to try to look for one, as long as the explanation isn't simply "god made it so".
Biohazard, I agree with what you are trying to say but what I found shows Galileo was caught up in a very academia related power struggle feud than most think especially with philosopher Bruno like daring the pope to martyr him for beating the church up with with Galileo worked on too.
I also have to add that "Evolutionary Theory" is no longer just "random mutation and natural selection" there is a "Modern Synthesis" with over a half dozen things working together with epigenetics and other things expected to change it even more. That is fine for the area of "evolution", so where it is taught just teach it properly.
My work is in the area of "intelligence" as is Intelligent Design, a whole other science field that just so happen to need an intelligence theory like that. Evolutionary theorists will not care where the ID movement goes annoy the scientists over there anyway, as long as they leave their theory alone. And the scientists there are almost prophets like here Guenter also honored at ARN where the ID Forum is where beginning work on the theory of ID began and now his online work is referenced from it like this:
 Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Robert Laughlin Rea, "Cell Intelligence", Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago.
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-bue ... llint0.htm
Have to show what is already there and the kind of theory that is possible by following a rather simple time proven scientific method, that you use too but is here adapted for our needs where there are no limits at all in science. The lectures on where science cannot go, is what needs to go because it is another science-stopper. Be more class time spent teaching how things work by skipping the boring class lecture and discussion on a philosophy based political statement that does not help understand our origins any better. Or helps anyone get a proper explanation of modern evolutionary theory, like I agree is necessary. But my field is "intelligence" so I'm leaving the "evolution" theory to those who like working on that one instead. ID theory has to develop a new area of science, not rewrite one already there.
As is with gravity, we certainly don't yet understand everything about evolution. Epigenetics is a good example of the fact that new knowledge can always change old beliefs (here: that acquired traits cannot be inherited, which is of course a big thing when it comes to the theory of evolution, but epigenetics adds to it instead of invalidating it).
And like with all science, it is or at least should be taught according to the latest knowledge without forgetting to mention possible contradictions, alternative theories and things that are still unlcear.
Last edited by biohazard on Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yes so much is changing so fast that the evolutionary theory that was being fought over no longer really even exist in science anymore. Evolutionary theory now has human chromosome speciation to better include, and I am glad I got off easy on that one in the intelligence theory with it already a place in the logic structure for that. Epigenetics was the missing part of the circuit schematic of the intelligence system for addressing memory action Data such that the genome looks like this when drawn as an electronic circuit schematic.
Science keeps falling in place, while evolutionary theory seems to be becoming increasingly complicated and harder to teach and learn with time. Maybe it is me but when you rearrange the logic around it might end up looking like the intelligence theory way of explaining speciation. It's not that the evolutionary theory cannot adapt to new evidence, it is what happens in time when it has to include intelligence making mate selection choices that makes it look a little like another ID theory starting to spruot inside a theory already there but I have reason to be the optimist on that happening!
Greetings all... I am the MjolnirPants of Gary's feedback comments, and I have a few things to say about this....
First, the comments I and most of the others posted had nothing to do with Gary's religious beliefs, but rather his insistence upon the truth of intelligent design, and his utterly misguided attempts to create his own version of the theory (which varies between being almost identical to evolutionary theory and almost identical to ID, depending upon his mood).
Second, I myself believe in God. However, I acknowledge without reservation that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of God's existence. Every question we have about the universe has either been answered through natural processes, or is so likely to be answered through them that it's not worth considering the whole "godditit" angle.
Gary is known on the forum from whence those comments came for unintelligent, ignorant posts and ridiculous claims to credibility. He has allowed his religious beliefs to color how he views the natural world, and as such, has faced ridicule and mocking when he attempts to pawn his views off on others.
The following link evinces everything I've said thus far (excepting my own religious beliefs) for anyone who doubts me, and also serves as an example of something Gary should spend more time doing: proving his claims.
Hi MjolnirPants who in feedback elsewhere said I am an "Enormous anus"!
If that is true then you must be very careful what you feed me. Never know what will come splattering out the other end. Hehehe...
It's great to see you admit to having a religious side too. But you don't have to torture yourself that much on my anally account. In this forum the discussion led to my somehow needing to evidence my experience without getting personal or being misunderstood, and all the manure in the online feedback was an ideal representative sampling of what I needed to document.
I would say that the consensus was that it is just the usual stupid crap that should not exist but unfortunately goes with the territory. And I agree with that conclusion, was not acting all hurt and religiously persecuted. My religion is more like what the sum of the world's religions is searching for, that I search for through science. Someone calling me a Bible thumper only shows how out of touch with reality some of my critics actually are. From the somewhat truthful complaints I get it's my theory-thumping that gets annoying but that only happens where studying a theory before commenting is not considered important.
Honestly, your becoming included in Biology-Online's definition of an "anus" is possibly the funniest thing I ever saw! Googling "enormous anus" is good too.
And to clear the air here from the stench of what you hurl over there I hope you don't mind me answering this one right now:
How I introduced K12 to "self-assembly" like that of cell membranes is now in encyclopedias. Google "gary gaulin self-assembly of cell membrane" for a sample of how far that NSTA journal peer-reviewed experiment has gone, so far. In science education it's the "PNAS" or "Nature" and hard to get published in. But I was certain they needed the experiment and as it turned out it was a big help for an upcoming issue that introduces (nonrandom) "self-assembly" to science teachers.
All of the elements of the theory are in one way or another going into science all the time. For example the "Intelligence Generator/Detector" tutorial works where genius programmers go for ideas PlanetSourceCode which is where it needs to be because in this case it is impossible to download source code from a paper journal it has to be published online on a major peer-reviewed information service for programmers. And I just remembered that the rating it received in initial review is shown, which is here 5 out of 5 stars.
Now try googling for something stupid about the ID "intelligence detector" to see whose smiling back at you again.
Best place to be is everywhere. So I work towards that goal. Metaphorically speaking worlds I can now goggle you too is entering the twilight zone where "intelligence" controls both your horizontal and vertical. And since what you are seeing is reality there is absolutely no way out.
Like it or not since at least the 70's robotics has been applied to biological systems. Now that biology is at the molecular level it's becoming even more valuable. There is now "systems biology" trying to understand such system behaviors where some qualify as "intelligent" which makes it possible to study living things from the perspective of intelligence, regardless of what you brown-nosers say.
To explain the theory in regards to "evolutionary theory" I will show the primary "logical construction" where you can see that it is not primarily a two part randomness/selection like the current model of evolutionary theory there are 36 interrelated places for what is under study can be sorted to. There is "Electronic Intelligence" of computer models followed by 5 levels of emergent causation biological intelligences:
Where something ends up having to be sorted to explains its primary function. For example I was recently working with egg-yolk/red-cabbage coacervates which produces motion/propulsion. That was easily found to be "REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL" and it would be extremely hard to argue that it belongs anywhere else. So now I know that the most important thing for teachers to explain about what is being seen is how the motion is produced and how it's the same sort of thing that turns flagella motors, muscles and other things that move. It's otherwise just showing students something moving around while suggesting it's somehow coming to life, when it's actually more like a body in need of a brain just twitching around which is kinda the same thing but at least how the experiment relates to the origin of life is much better explained.
The coacervates in turn brought into question the ordering of the remaining three requirements in time, to show what came next after the other. There is little doubt that #1 must be there first. Here we find the coacervates twitching around full of the simple molecules that when properly combined produces a chicken and other things. Which also answers the "What came first the chicken or the egg?" question by first predicting "egg-yolk". Which is found in both the chicken and the egg. But the chicken doesn't need the egg to survive or the egg necessarily need the chicken which in turn predicts the egg came first.
How to order the remaining three requirements were not as obvious, so I left it in the order I started with until what needed to be done became noticeable. And now I can see that a coacervate controlled by #3 Feedback could do something interesting. But having #2 Memory would seem to be useless at that point in time. Which indicates that #2 and #3 can be swapped so that after something to control it needs feedback. First there would be a muscle to control, which we know has two connections one to control "motor" action to make it move as commanded and a "feedback" back to the brain to sense what the muscle is actually doing. The electronic intelligence also needs motor control and feedback for it to work properly.
The logical construction of this theory makes predictions as individually testable hypotheses are added which in turn refine the logical construction of the theory itself, but there are definitely four requirements only their final ordering is left in question. It's what the theory self-corrected to, starting with just a few paragraphs with the whole idea but nothing like the logic structure it now has that was a long step by step assembly process.
The logical structure of Darwinian evolutionary theory is not comparable to the logical structure of an Intelligent causation origins theory. One covers "evolution" but not "origins" while the other covers "origins" while evolution is a concept from another theory that is more precisely a form of "learning" therefore that word must be used because that's how robotics intelligence science works. So logically, there is no doubt at all that they are two completely different theories, each with their unique terminology.
But when the wind blows the other way there comes what teachers actually teach in science class when they present their knowledge of "evolutionary theory" which will have origins science mixed in even though evolutionary theory is not supposed to cover that. And since origins theory is already there in the class time that's most likely where the other theory will be taught too. Might later rename it "origins theory" to reflect science teachers being beyond explaining just evolution. So even though the two theories are very different "evolutionary theory" that is taught in school includes origins theories along with it that combines the two like they are one.
The intelligence theory can cover "evolution" because it covers all of origins by using a different logical construction. Even though MjolnirPants and other noodle-heads bend over forward to try to tell you otherwise.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests