Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Anti-IDist chooses the "Momma's boy" approach to the debate

Well it was bound to happen. An anti-IDist, arguing from ID ignorance, chooses to falsely accuse me and make bald assertions about my knowledge. It is a typical ploy and one I knew Jim Wynne would resort to.

So let's look at what Jimmy said before he ran away:

1) He says I "appeal to authority"

Reality demonstrates I appeal to scientific data. But perhaps Jimmy can tell me what authority I appeal to.

2) "Arguments from personal incredulity"

I take it this means that his arguments are from personal credulity. If they weren't then all he has to do is provide the data. Real data refutes beliefs. So why doesn't Jimmy presnt any real data?

3) "Projection"

That one is all yours James.

4. "Strawman building"

Again that one is all yours. But I would love to hear about the alleged "strawman" I have built. However I also understand that your "Mamma's boy" tatic doesn't afford that luxury.

5) A profound ignorance of the science he criticizes.

Based on what? IF I am ignorant of the theory of evolution or biology it is the fault of evolutionitwits. They are who I read to find out about the theory. I learned about biology through them.

However I will gladly test my knowledge against Jimmy's.


You know Jim, we do have something in common- I understand ID and you can spell ID.

I will take this moment to include that Jimmy, instead of actually having an original thought, actually parroted Dawkins from "The Blind Watchmaker" in saying the theory of evolution can be falsified by finding a fossilized rabbit in the pre-cambrian. Jimmy should have noticed that Dawkins never substantiated that claim. He didn't because he couldn't. That is one of the stupidest claims I have ever read and it demonstrates that Jimmy doesn't understand the science or for that matter science in general.

The best that finding a pre-cam fossilized rabbit could do is to falsify the current history of life- which every eductaed person understands is not the same as the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not say "we will not find a pre-cam rabbit."

31 Comments:

  • At 9:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A few notes on Jimmy's response and confirmation is is rabid and will never present anything to substantiate his claims.

    My alleged strawman:

    Some anti-IDists argue that it is an eliminative filter. Well, yeah! All filters eliminate. The EF eliminates via consideration. Would they prefer we started at the design inference and stay there until it is falsified?

    Mamma's boy's accusation is that no one argues that the EF is eliminative. Yet THAT us exactly why I wrote the essay over 1.5 years ago. So guess what? Yup the Momma's boy wants me to PROVE it.

    Yeah- I'll get right one that for you. What a twit.

    The other point of note is about the pre-cam fossilized rabbit and Dawkins. Sorry Jimbo but Dawkins did not give anyone else the credit for that- not that I saw in his book anyway. However I noticed you didn't substantiate the claim.

    As if finding the proverial needle in the haystack is a scientific falsification.

    Try this:

    How would falsify the premise that any particular biochemical system or organism "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process?

    As for what data is relevant- how about the biological or genetic data that would demonstrate, for example, a population of non-humans could "evolve" into a population of humans?

    As for science- biology in particular- I learned from evos. I once considered becoming either a zoologist or a marine biologist. All that changed after 3 months in the Central American rain forest where I realized that all the variation in the world does not change the type of organism. Genes may alter traits but traits do not make the organism.

    Engineering is applied science. Without technology scientists would still be like Theodoric of York. I develop, set up and conduct experiments daily. I work with ionization and ion mobility. I have to know the science, the technology and how to use both to further develop each.

    BTW it isn't really "an appeal to authority" when responding to lies and misrepresentations. It is really called "setting the record straight".

    And with all the alleged "evolutionary research" we still don't know what makes an organism what it is. Which means we don't know if one population can "evolve" into another.

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More on the pre-cambrian rabbit:

    UC Law

    "When commentators on my December 21 post challenged other commentators to specify what evidence they would accept as falsifying Darwinism, the responses cited J. B. S. Haldane’s remark that discovering a rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian rock would do it. But the order of life forms in the fossil record indicates only of the emergence of some forms before others, a fact that ID does not dispute. What is contested is whether this ordering was the product of random selection or intelligent design."

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Joe said, with regard to his strawman argument about Dembski's EF,

    Mamma's boy's accusation is that no one argues that the EF is eliminative. Yet THAT us exactly why I wrote the essay over 1.5 years ago. So guess what? Yup the Momma's boy wants me to PROVE it.

    It's very simple, Joe. I said you use strawmen to support your belief in ID. You denied it. I showed you a perfect example, and said that it you think that there have been significant arguments against the EF on the basis of its being eliminative, rather than the fact that it doesn't eliminate false positives, then you should be able to point me to such an argument. You respond by denial without substantiation. Case closed.

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JW:
    It's very simple, Joe. I said you use strawmen to support your belief in ID.

    I don't have a belief in ID. And I am still awaiting that alleged "strawman" I used.

    JW:
    You denied it.

    I asked you to presnt that strawman. I am still waiting.

    JW:
    I showed you a perfect example,

    Then you must be a "perfect" idiot.

    JW:
    and said that it you think that there have been significant arguments against the EF on the basis of its being eliminative, rather than the fact that it doesn't eliminate false positives, then you should be able to point me to such an argument.

    You are a joke. I said that SOME people argue that it is eliminative. I NEVER said there have been significant arguments against the EF on that basis.

    You are a dishonest little prick. Yup Momma's boy it is.

    And as I posted that "essay" was written about 1.5 years ago. The discussion board it took place on does not exist as such any more.

    False positives? I don't know of any case in which the EF gave a false positive, that is to a person who knew how to use it. A false negative perhaps, but that is easy as intelligent agencies can mimic nature.

    And why does the Momma's boy avoid this:

    How would falsify the premise that any particular biochemical system or organism "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process?

    Well because he is a Momma's boy of course. Thanks for the continued demonstration.

     
  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger FishyFred said…

    Joe, quick note, but extremely important. You apparently don't know what "Argument for personal incredulity" is. To put it as simply as I can, it is saying "I don't think this could have happened because it's just too improbable." This is what you are accused of if you say that evolution is so unlikely that it couldn't have happened, when you are ignoring things like 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

    Your incredulity is causing what you are accused of in Point #5: You appear to have a profound ignorance of evolution. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but the fact is that it is not all that hard to figure out whether or not you are misrepresenting evolution.

     
  • At 12:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FishyFred,

    The "29 evidences" do NOT discuss a mechanism. The debate between IDists and evos is all about the mechanism.

    I don't say that evolution could not happen because it is too improbable. I am saying is show me that data. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. And science has shown us that a mutation is more likely to get lost in a population than it is to becoming fixed. IOW genetic homeostasis is the rule.

    And why would anyone believe the propaganda spewed on talkorigins?

    I may be ignorant though, so please help me out:

    How would falsify the premise that any particular biochemical system or organism "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process?

     
  • At 2:19 PM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Joe said:
    How would falsify the premise that any particular biochemical system or organism "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process?

    I'll be happy to answer your question if you'll clarify what you mean by "some blind watchmaker-type process." Are you saying that you don't accept the concept of common descent? Are you asking for an explantion of biological diversity or the origin of life? I know you'd like to be able to ask a deliberately ambiguous question and then scoff when you don't get what you consider to be an acceptable answer. I'll be happy to answer sensible questions if you're interested in learning something.

     
  • At 3:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How would falsify the premise that any particular biochemical system or organism "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process?

    Jim Wynne:
    I'll be happy to answer your question if you'll clarify what you mean by "some blind watchmaker-type process."

    You mean- clrify it AGAIN? OK bit only one more time and just because I am feeling good on a Friday:

    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    Jim Wynne asks:
    Are you saying that you don't accept the concept of common descent?

    I understand the concept. I also understand the data is limits the concept to:
    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.


    Jim Wynne asks:
    Are you asking for an explantion of biological diversity or the origin of life?

    The question is very clear. Use the bacterial flagella as an example:

    How would falsify the premise that the bacterial flagella "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process (from bacterium without such a structure)?


    However I have also noted in the past and it remains in play today that if life did not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those same type of processes. But that is irrelevant to what I am asking.

    Jim Wynne:
    I'll be happy to answer sensible questions if you're interested in learning something.

    Time will tell.

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Your hand-waving aside, the question is not "very clear." I'm well-versed in the propensity for Paleyists to move the goalposts when cornered, so I know how important it is to understand the question before answering it. I think that what you're doing is constructing yet another strawman, and you're argument has internal inconsistencies that make it difficult to give a sensible answer. So let's clear things up a bit, shall we?

    I've repeatedly asked whether you accept common descent or not, and you keep dodging the question. The best answer I've gotten so far is

    "I understand the concept. I also understand the data is limits the concept to:
    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor."

    OK, you say that "particular groups" have descended from a common ancestor." Which "groups"? How do you define "group"? You say a common ancestor, so I take that to mean "one." Can you identify it? If not, how do you know there's just one? Or do you mean that each "group" has a common ancestor? What do your data say?

    Next, you seem to want to talk about the origin of life as opposed to the origin of species (perhaps what you're referring to as "groups"?). If you want me to explain the former, I'm afraid I can't help you, because no one knows. We can guess all we want, and express incredulity at the odds against "undirected" abiogenesis, but I'm afraid your guess is no better than mine, or anyone else's. It's interesting to note that actual scientists (i.e., the non-Behe/Minnich/Gonzales type) are conducting actual research on the question, but the jury, as they say, is still out. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why the Discovery Institute spends millions of dollars on PR but not a nickel to fund the research.

    So if you're want me to say that I can't account for the origin of life, I'll be happy to do that for you. I personally don't care about your religious beliefs, but I certainly respect your right to them. Believe what you want to believe, just don't characterize your personal incredulity as "science," and don't try to sneak it in the back door of public schools.

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thank you Jim. This is going exactly as I predicted.

    JW:
    Your hand-waving aside, the question is not "very clear."

    What is not "very clear" about the following:

    How would falsify the premise that the bacterial flagella "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process (from bacterium without such a structure)?

    Or is it that you just can't answer the question?

    JW:
    Next, you seem to want to talk about the origin of life as opposed to the origin of species (perhaps what you're referring to as "groups"?).

    That is because you just don't know how tom read or just can't comprehend what you read.

    The following makes that very clear:

    However I have also noted in the past and it remains in play today that if life did not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those same type of processes. But that is irrelevant to what I am asking.

    I am not a christian and don't have any religious beliefs.

    As for science:

    Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn't scientific?

    BTW how can I be "constructing another strawman" when it hasn't been demonstrated that I even constructed one?

     
  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What I found on Haldane's precam rabbit:

    "I will give up my belief in evolution if someone finds a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian."

    That doesn't amount to a falsification. But at least he admitted his belief in evolution.

    Sounds like a religion to me.

    As I said the best finding a precam rabbit could do is to refute the history of life- which educated people understand is different than the theory of evolution.

    On another note- IF such was found why wouldn't the strata just be classified as something other than precam? Strata do not come with labels. Or why wouldn't it just be explained away like so many artifacts that have been found in strata "dated" before humans were supposed to be around?

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Gee, not religious, but still use all of the lame arguments (misplaced fossils, e.g.)that the creationists use. I know it won't do any good, but Panda's Thumb has a good post on the falsification question today. Make sure you read the comments too. Lenny Flank makes the excellent point that creationists spend a lot of time complaining that evolution can't be science because it can't be falsified, and then spend the rest of their time citing what they believe to be falsifications. Go figure. Anyway, the PT post is here:
    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/how_to_disprove.html

     
  • At 1:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JW:
    Gee, not religious, but still use all of the lame arguments (misplaced fossils, e.g.)that the creationists use.

    YOU were the one to use misplaced fossils- the precam rabbit fossil.

    Perhaps you could show me where I used it.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jim,

    Your provided link was truncated but I found the site:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/how_to_disprove.html

    However it doesn't say anything relevant to what I am asking. Evolution isn't being debated and ID is OK with common descent IF there is data demonstrating such a thing on a grand scale.

    So please stop avoiding the question:

    How would falsify the premise that the bacterial flagella "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process (from bacterium without such a structure)?

    Or admit you are a Momma's boy...

    And what does using creationists' arguments, especially those based on the data, have to do with religion?

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    First, if you're going to ask a question, you might want to take a moment and make sure all of the necessary words are present before posting it. There seems to be a significant gap between "would" and "falsify."

    The PT thread in question directly addresses what I'm guessing your question is. Why not get someone with a brain to read it to you? And you want to know how using religious arguments is religious? Are you serious? Keep posting, Joe. You keep burying yourself deeper and deeper.

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Future Geek said…

    "How would falsify the premise that the bacterial flagella "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process (from bacterium without such a structure)?"

    How would what falsify the premise?

     
  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK:

    How would ANYONE falsify the premise that the bacterial flagella "evolved" via some blind watchmaker-type process (from bacterium without such a structure)?

    As for the PT thread it answers nothing. If the posters there had a brain they would be damgerous.

    Jim aks:
    And you want to know how using religious arguments is religious?

    Nope not at all. Perhaps you shouldn't have skipped your remedial reading classes.

    Time is ticking Jimmy boy and you are still stalling- as predicted. Thanks again.

     
  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Joe said,
    As for the PT thread it answers nothing. If the posters there had a brain they would be damgerous.

    Damgerous??

    Joe, I'm about through with this now. You want to pretend that evolution by RM+NS can't be falsified, and yet you seem to spend an awful lot of time posting nonsense that you believe does just that. If you can't mobilize your gray matter to the extent necessary to make your own arguments internally consistent, there isn't much point in providing you with any sort of real challenge.

     
  • At 8:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JW sez:
    Joe, I'm about through with this now.

    LoL! YOU were through before you started.

    JM sez:
    You want to pretend that evolution by RM+NS can't be falsified,

    And you appear to be unable to demonstrate that it can be.

    JW sez:
    and yet you seem to spend an awful lot of time posting nonsense that you believe does just that.

    Reality says I post the scientific data that would appear to do just that. Yet you evolutionitwits always insist that the scientific data posted is wrong.

    THAT is why I asked the question.

    But thanks for exposing your intellectual cowardice. That is what this excercise was all about. And you came through with "flying colors".

    As for any "significant gap"- that would be the space between your ears.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    I can't say it any better than Andrea Bottaro did in a response to you at Panda's Thumb:

    "...you are remarkably impenetrable to reason and unaware of self-embarassment. I strongly suggest you check the content of your next posts for unwarranted and self-contradictory claims."

    The only thing I can add is that I hope you keep up the good work; you're the best argument against ID I've ever come across.

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But "Andrea Bottaro" translated means "can't understand normal thinking".

    She is another evolutionitwit that can't substantiate her claims and acts like a baby when her nonsense is thrashed.

    Your continued intellectual cowardice demonstrates all you evolutionitwits "argue" alike.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Joe, Joe, Joe. Once again you've pulled down your pants and shown us your unbounded ignorance, and for that I must thank you once again. Andrea Botarro is not a "she".

     
  • At 1:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ROTFLMAO!!!!

    I know the "gender". But when one "argues like a little girl" AND has the name, I like to capitalize/ exploit such scenarios when personally attacked by such a screamer.

    Now one along and go play in traffic...

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Coming clean:

    When I read my first posting/ article/ essay by Andrea Bottaro, I intially had the inference "this beyotch doesn't know what she (gender-female) is talking about."

    It was after the name popped up again that I did the research into this person and realized my initial folly.

    However every time I read "her" pap-filled diatribe all of my initial inferences come-a-callin'.

    Appearances can be deceiving...

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    Joe G says here.

    For more on ID please visit:

    Intelligent Reasoning

    I will gladly demonstrate how wrong you people are about ID and preserve it for all time- just stop on by…


    I see you like a challenge, and I should be pleased for you to demonstrate

    Well Joe, am I wrong to suspect the following:

    1. ID is not science. It is not even a theory. It makes no useful predictions.
    2. There has been no published peer-reviewed work suggesting a testable hypothesis of ID.
    3. ID has been adopted by creationist activists such as Phillip Johnson as a wedge strategy to insert creationist dogma into school science syllaba.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    Ah, moderated comments. I should have expected no less.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will gladly demonstrate how wrong you people are about ID and preserve it for all time- just stop on by…

    Allan Fox:
    I see you like a challenge, and I should be pleased for you to demonstrate

    Well Joe, am I wrong to suspect the following:

    1. ID is not science. It is not even a theory. It makes no useful predictions.


    As I have already posted "The Provileged Planet" makes several predictions. I will also note- again- that Dan Dennett states there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time- so what exactly is the predictive power of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    AF:
    2. There has been no published peer-reviewed work suggesting a testable hypothesis of ID.

    Is there a published peer-review suggesting a testable hypothesis of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

    But I digress. As Dr. Behe states:

    “Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
    Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

    In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

    How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”


    Both CSI and IC are testable concepts.

    AF:
    3. ID has been adopted by creationist activists such as Phillip Johnson as a wedge strategy to insert creationist dogma into school science syllaba.

    Try reading my entire blog. That way you wouldn't make so many mistakes.

    Here are a few posts worth reading:

    Intelligent Design and Creation

    Why ID is scientific- short version

    More thoughts on falsifying ID

    And yes all comments are moderated. Considering the opposition it is the only intelligent way to host this blog...

     
  • At 3:14 AM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    JoeG, what does a Field Service Engineer do?

    Name one useful, testable prediction, made by the theory of ID (whatever that might be), preferably impinging on the realm of evolutionary biology.

    Can you list a scientific paper that is in any way sympathetic to the theory of ID (whatever that might be)?

    Do you seriously claim that the theory of ID (whatever that might be) is other than a cloak for religious apologetics, as a ruse to slip it past the separation of church and state legislation? (I accept Demski's motive is to make money from his books, but that is a side issue).

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    AF asks:
    JoeG, what does a Field Service Engineer do?

    Whatever we have to to get the job done, keep the customer happy and keep the integrity of the company intact.

    Basically installing equipment, training customers, maintenance, repair, upgrades, engineer solutions- hardware & software, provide feedback to the design team, provide fault analysis for the design and sustaining teams. All with customers hanging all over us. Sometimes in dangerous situations- Iraq and Colombia, for example, are two countries I have worked in recently.

    Af:
    Name one useful, testable prediction, made by the theory of ID (whatever that might be), preferably impinging on the realm of evolutionary biology.

    Are predictions really necessary? I ask because Dan Dennett tells us there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. That was re-iterated in the PBS series "Evolution".

    IOW it looks like unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can offer no predictive power.

    That said ID predicts IC/ CSI in biological organisms.

    AF:
    Can you list a scientific paper that is in any way sympathetic to the theory of ID (whatever that might be)?

    Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

    Can you list any scientific paper that would demonstrate that a population of bacteria can evolve into anything but a population of bacteria?

    Can you show us the experiment that was perfomed to confirm the claim that cetaceans "evolved" from land animals?

    Are there ANY claims made by evolutionists that are objectively testable? If so please name them and show us the test.

    AF:
    Do you seriously claim that the theory of ID (whatever that might be) is other than a cloak for religious apologetics, as a ruse to slip it past the separation of church and state legislation?

    Yes. I am not religious. And I understand that any implications any theory may have should not be conflated with the theory itself. I also understand that people's motives should not be conflated with any theory.

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    JoeG

    Thanks for explaining in such detail about your line of work. I imagine it is challenging and rewarding. However, it does not necessarily give you much insight into evolutionary biology, so I assume that you form your opinions second-hand as indeed I do

    I also note from glancing through your various comments that you are very sure of your opinions, so it is unlikely that I am going to have much influence. It is also certain that you have nothing to teach me in the field of biology, so an extended exchange of views would be a waste of time for both of us. As the lurker level is also likely to be minuscule, I think I'll return to Pandas Thumb (where you posted your link that brought me here).

    Regards
    Alan Fox

     
  • At 9:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ummm, I didn't provide any details and you have a funny way of asking about about someone's knowledge of evolution. What someone does for a living in no way limits their knowledge.

    The ONLY thing that can influence my "opinions" (as you call them) is data. And there isn't any data that would demonstrate a population of bacteria can "evolve" into anything but a population of bacteria.


    I was an evolutionist. My training in marine biology and zoology, especially the months spent in the rain forrest of Central America & Colombia studying the stunning amount of adaptation and variation, is what told me the theory of evolution is a house of cards.

    Engineering goes for direct results. Without technology science would be lame. Untestable theoretical musings of past events is fine for people who have nothing to do but I'm a results kind of guy.

    And it also happens that technology is very relevant when discussing biology, meaning biology isn't just for biologists:

    Approaching Biology From a Different Angle

    I am looking for quality arguments so I don't usually get to Panda's Thumb. The place reminds me of monkies sitting in the trees, out-of-sight, just inside the jungle perimeter. These monkies entice people to come in but then pelt them with pure bullsh!+ as soon as the perimeter is compromised.

    c-ya

    (cue- "another one bites the dust")

     

Post a Comment

<< Home