Re: Let's fight

NashtOn wrote:
Marc wrote:
NashtOn wrote:
Marc wrote:
NashtOn wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"justchillin" <wrightxy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

... SNiP (one copy of NashtOn's sig is enough)

snp snp snp - several random snips (just like evoluton!)

Evidence defeats wishful thinking, dude.

Your ability to stay on topic, "dude", is lacking.

Your sig file is the topic here.... can't you even figure that much
out, I mean - it is your sig file, isn't it?

It is? Was it the title of the thread?

Tell me the truth here - have you even looked at the UCSC site?

"Dude", I did, I browsed and there is still no evidence for evolution.
Just similarities/differences that can be interpreted many ways.

Look at a gene, dude - look at several dozen random ones - with the
comparitive genomics toggle turned on. Why are those genes all
found in several other species? Could it be that they are related?

Dude, you are looking right at the data (raw DNA code is just a click
or two away if you want to do your own alignments). If you refuse to
see what you are looking at, that is _your_ comprehension which is
the issue here. Why are there thousands of genes found in all the
different vertebrates that are there in front of you, dude, and you are
not able to tell that they are a result of evolution. COMPARE THE
SEQUENCES if you have to - why do all the phylogenetic trees come
to very similar relationships between the species? Why, dude?


"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation.


This is no reason for evolution to be controversial. It is based on the
laws of chemistry and genetics and all that stuff.

No, I already posted about how biology is not like chemistry or physics
in that there are no laws per se.

That you made a post on it does not make it so. That Lehninger wrote
about it in the introduction to his "Biochemistry" textbook makes it
so.

The Laws of biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics obey all
the laws of chemistry and physics, but have a higher order in that they
are the laws that describe the living state. You are no Lehninger,
dude.


Nobody ever said
that it wasn't. There is even evidence that the region of our brains
that experiences "religious feeling" is itself a product of evolution,
so the ability to ponder God is itself a product of evolution.

You evo-drama-queens find evolution under every rock and have an
evolutionary explanation foe everything under the sun. There is no
evidence whatsoever that religious feeling is a product of evolution,
it's all in your twisted imagination, unless you have experimental data
to prove it, which you don't.


*********************************************************
This was posted in the "catch 22" thread in January, but you
must have missed it. Read carefully, dude.:

**********
There is a Correspondence item from the 12. Jan issue
of Nature that is interesting in this regard.
****************
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/full/439138a.html

"Neuroscience gears up for duel on the issue of brain versus deity"
by Kenneth S. Kosik (Neuoscience Research Institute, UCSB)

The argument over evolution versus intelligent design, discussed
in your News story "Day of judgement for intelligent design"
(Nature 438, 267; 2005), is a relatively small-stakes theological
issue compared with the potential eruption in neuroscience over
the material nature of the mind.

Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem
for many deeply religious people, because one can easily
accept evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material
being. On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view
in the neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product
of the brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions.

The slow ramping up of this debate, from Descartes' dualism in
the seventeenth century to the neurophilosopher materialists' claims
of victory today, is about to spill over from an esoteric mind-brain
debate to the divisive question of whether a product of the mind,
such as God, can have any traditionally valid existence whatsoever.

The debate becomes whether a deity, on one hand, stems from
human imagination or biological drive or, on the other hand, has
an authentic existence that the brain has evolved to perceive.

The reappearance of dualism brings back dusty old memories
of long-ago battles that may now need to be refought. As we saw
from the media ruckus raised by the Dalai Lama's address to
November's Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington DC
(even if this did turn down to a rather low simmer on site), the
potential for impassioned disagreement exists.

The matter now stands at an intellectual impasse, waiting for an
ssue around which polarized views will crystallize. We can expect
some heady days.

*************************


Now, dude, our brains have evolved. It's real science,
and a result of our evolution we have brains that have a
capacity for the experience we term "religious". It's just
neurophysiology at work. People will vary based on their
inheritance and development, but it all comes down to
cells and neurotransmitters. We may even be able to work
out in terms of comparative neurophysiology to what degree
the different species have any ability for such feelings.

Don't discount this too quickly, dude, unless you can tell me
just what it is whales are singing about. (More reason not
to kill them for "science" then serve them as burgers.)


Is there
anything wrong with this? Is that any different to the ability we have
to ponder our own evolution? Why is it that you need "God" to be in
charge of evolution, when all sorts of evidence is there that God
isn't?


You crazy quebecer, you can't claim that evolution is the basis of every
behavior or trait and think that referring me to a genome site explains
everything?


Quebec? Dude, I don't speak French. But I am in the Commonwealth.

Look for "Parramatta, New South Wales" on Google Earth,
if you can find it. (12km WNW from Homebush Olympic Park.)


So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?


People may "suspect" anything, but educated, intelligent people
can understand that evolution explains how we came to exist and
many of the illnesses we get.

You're using the same ruminations over and over and over again, "dude."
There is no validity to your claim that educated people in other fields,
lay people essentially to biology, have enough or more knowledge than
biologists or that their beliefs add a veneer of credence to your
religion of Darwinism.

Calling me a "darwinist" is totally wrong - I might as well call you
a "hindu" - call me a "Brennerist" or maybe even a "Landerist", OK?


They can also understand why this
should be taught in science classes and why "ID" shouldn't be.

That is a REALLY big problem on your part. "ID" is not science, dude.


Now if you keep using that sig file, I can reply to it again and again
without being "off-topic", dude. More evidence turns up every day
that supports evolution - the support against evolution lacks any
foundation and - like your sig - just gets older every day.

You can reply to it as much as you like.It's still valid, truthful and I
don't live in Quebec, so I can write whatever I please in whatever
language I please. ;)

Your sig file is not valid... it's stupid - but that's not the worst
part.

It's just TOO LONG - the exchange of comments here in different
threads keeps having this big blob - lika a kind of cancer - that sits
there and you focus on it for a moment and then have to stop that
process when you realise that it is not some new text, it's just an
old, stupid sig file that wasn't trimmed. Maybe you could start up
a thread about it every five weeks - just a fresh new post with that
passage and maybe some other passage and see what replies you
get, but having it there again and again is getting more and more
stupid. So I will reply to it whenever I feel like it, bugger what the
thread was about. I mean, it's not like you read what we suggest
anyway, or look at the data or anything.


I expect a truthful answer about your having used the UCSC genome
browser or not. If you learn to use it, we can start to show you where
all sorts of data is available that you can study yourself. (It's even
free.)

Is there any description of experimentation with evolution where one
species morphed into another, or did time do it, once again and I'm
going to have to take the word of a bunch of atheists that evolution
actually does occur based on genome studies?

What percent of people working in genomics are really atheists?
Certainly not more than half, probably more like a quarter (or less).
You _are_ allowed to be educated and understand science and
still have faith, you know.

What is wrong with time being a part of evolution? It is, you know.

It takes a lot of generations to do the "genetic drift" thing. We can
expect some serious selection with global warming, but you will
have to wait for the adjustments by a number of species as they
start to shift their ecological niches. Certainly these things work
more quickly in times of stress (like those coming our way), but
it will take a decade or two to see much of it in the wild.

If you want to see one type of animal give birth to a completely
different kind, it just shows that you have no ability to reason.

Dude, it's funny that you can be told something so basic a thousand
times and still not get your mind around it. I would guess you are
getting close to have been told this a thousand times. For every one
of the posts you have made where you have said something stupid
about some of the very basic ideas about evolution, and - dude,
you've made hundreds - you would have been replied to perhaps
five times on average, and you still don't know what they are saying
when they correct you, do you, dude? You just turn and say "all you
darwinists", and you can't even get _that_ right. I'm a Brennerist or
maybe a Lederbergerist. (I was a Crickist, but he's dead now.) Perhaps
you could call me a "future Landerist", but leave Darwin out of this.

I spent my undergrad science classes studing chemistry and
biology - including "evolution", not Darwinism.

In grad school I did a M.Sc. by coursework and some research, and
again studied evolution (but not Darwin). I did read about Darwin in
high school, when we covered the Scopes Monkey trial. So why do
you call everybody a Darwinist and also an atheist when you are
most likely wrong, dude?

Nicolas, dude, you should take the second paragraph of Kosik's
correspondence to Nature as your new sig file. It's worded better.

(signed) marc

...

.

Relevant Pages
Loading