bio-engineering; synthetic DNA, that replicates - a bit scarey - Page 12

Quote from ggturner:

sevenpatch:  Wow, are you gainfully employed?  You sure do have A LOT of spare time.

Would that make it easier for you to ignore my valid points?  If I were a high school dropout with no job, sitting in my parents basement, would that make it easier for you to dismiss my challenge to your bias and ignorance?

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you but I am a software developer for an international engineering company and I own my own home, have my own family.  I am capable of multi-tasking, I type fast, read fast and it only took me an hour, maybe an hour and a half to do respond to your last post.

My hobbies include computers, software programming, video games, watching movies and tv shows, theoretical physics, biology, chemistry, watching sports, charity work and yes doing what I can to counter ignorance on internet forums.

Yes, I like dogs as well.

Quote from ggturner:

I must say you wasted your time; too many other things to do than to try to prove your bias.

At the very least I have shown your bias and ignorance for others to see.  I can’t force you to not be biased or ignorant, but I can challenge your ignorance.

Quote from ggturner:

My links to articles on scientists falsifying data was to show that scientists can be dishonest or corrupt (not all of them of course).   I could have posted many, many more articles, but I don't have the time that you obviously have. 

Which does not support your claim that many scientists try to be politically correct or are just plain corrupt.

I’ll take that as your concession that your claim was based on your cognitive biases and that you now retract your claim.

It’s okay to be wrong, it happens to everyone.  It is better to admit when you are wrong and correct your mistakes and put in the effort to research the arguments so you can make an informed decision.

Quote from ggturner:

Good for you for checking out some of the scientists who signed the petition

Sounds like that is more than what you’ve done.

Quote from ggturner:

You must have a bias against Christian scientists.

You must have a poor grasp of reality and an inability to use logic and reason effectively.

I have no issue with scientists who happen to be Christian, or any religion for that matter.  No, I have a bias against ignorance.

Quote from ggturner:

Believe it or not, some Christian scientists have been Nobel laureates.

And?  I never said a scientist who happens to be a Christian can’t be a competent and qualified scientist.  I know of quite a few who fully accept the theory of evolution.

Quote from ggturner:

Regardless, the petition those scientists signed is not "driven" by religion as you imply.

All of the signers belong to a religion, some specifically believe in the Biblical creation myth, many are proponents and contributors to creationism and Intelligent Design (both of which have been found to be religious by the U.S. court system).  None actually offer any research or publications that justify their skepticism of the theory of evolution, and instead they misrepresent the theory in order to justify their bias.

Denial won’t help you.

Quote from ggturner:

The petition is based on skepticism of evolutionary evidence.  Hence, the statement at the beginning of the petition (a statement that says nothing about an intelligent creator).  Here is the statement:  
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."  

The site also has this statement:

5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?

No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written.  Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.

Are you that naïve? Do you believe everything you read?

Your list of 660 scientists is meaningless.  As I’ve already said, the qualifications of most are in question.  Some are actually known pathological liars and con artists.  You want to talk about corrupt scientists?  Look no further than your list of 660 signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

Ah, but you don’t mind corruption if it conforms to your preconceived beliefs.

Quote from ggturner:

Nothing wrong with skepticism and wanting more evidence in science. 

I agree, there is nothing wrong with skepticism and wanting more evidence for anything, not just science.  I find it odd that you note “in science”.  That is your bias speaking, your bias has already decided what is science and what is not based on your preconceived beliefs.  You don’t actually care about evidence unless it conforms to your beliefs.

Unfortunately, the crowd which signed your petition isn’t participating in healthy skepticism and simply expecting more evidence in science, what they are doing is exactly what you are, opposing anything that doesn’t conform to their preconceived beliefs.

They support a movement of creationist propaganda based on misconceptions and lies regarding the theory of evolution.  They don’t care one bit about skepticism or evidence.  They want their preconceived beliefs confirmed even if it means ignorance and corruption rule.

Quote from ggturner:

As to physics and evolution, this is where I was coming from:

 http://www.pittsburghgeologicalsociety.org/evolution.htm

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Cosmic_Evolution.pdf

http://science1.nasa.gov/astrophysics/big-questions/how-did-universe-originate-and-evolve-produce-galaxies-stars-and-planets-we-see-today/

How exactly does the Pittsburgh geological society link have anything to do with the theory of evolution being used by physicists to explain the origin of the universe?!?!  It merely talks about the opposition and ignorance aimed at the theory of evolution and separately the origin of the universe (perhaps the Big Bang theory).  They are not connected besides they are both simply opposed because they conflict with mythology.  

I couldn’t access your second link.

LOL at your third link.  You think the word evolution specifically relates to the theory of evolution?  No, the word evolution is just a word to describe gradual change.  The Theory of Evolution is a theory which explains how species have come to be as we know them today.

The word evolution does not equal the Theory of Evolution.    You seem to have a limited understanding of the theory of evolution and science.  That isn't an insult, just an observation based on your mistaken assumptions so far.  Do you think you are qualified to make an informed decision on anything related to the theory of evolution and science in general?  With your lack of knowledge, I really don't see how you are.  Perhaps you should withold formulating an opinion until you gather more information.

If you have any questions about the theory of evolution or science in general, I'd be glad to help you out.

Quote from ggturner:

Now, I have a life to live.  

 Have a good day!

Sure am glad you have a life sevenpatch.  I also have a family, home, and occupation.  BTW my son is a software developer for a large corporation.   

It is obvious that you have an agenda and an obsession.   

Since I have a degree in science, I don't need your assistance or advice in that area. You made assumptions about my educational background because I am a Christian and don't believe in macro evolution.   Such arrogance and prejudice on your part.    

 

Quote from beetree:

Integrity is a universal option regardless of money or profession.

Name one profession that is free of corruption.

Hello Sevenpatch, 

I am not sure what your question has to do with my statement? The idea that there is not a corruption free profession existing, still, leaves one the option, or choice, to have one. I would say it even parallels with being given free will to not sin, when at the same time we are told, we are all sinners. 

---

 

And thanks to all who said nice things about my alien painting! 

Quote from ggturner:

Sure am glad you have a life sevenpatch.  I also have a family, home, and occupation.  BTW my son is a software developer for a large corporation.

Good, I am glad for you and your son.

Quote from ggturner:

It is obvious that you have an agenda and an obsession.  

You are right, I do have an agenda and an obsession.  I seek to expose willful ignorance and hopefully along the way I can help people correct their mistakes or errors in judgment, logic or reason.  I’m interested in providing information that people are not considering due to their bias.  Along the way, I seek to correct my own mistakes and errors.

You should know, it is also obvious that you have an agenda and an obsession.

Quote from ggturner:

Since I have a degree in science, I don't need your assistance or advice in that area.

Considering your mistakes in understanding the theory of evolution so far, it might be arrogant not to seek assistance and advice.  It seems your bias is affecting your decisions.

Quote from ggturner:

You made assumptions about my educational background because I am a Christian and don't believe in macro evolution.

More straw-man arguments.  You might want to do some research on logical fallacies as they are also a byproduct of your bias.  I haven’t made any assumptions about your educational background, nor does it matter whether you are Christian or not.  Making a statement that you don’t believe in macro evolution is precisely an acknowledgment of lack of understanding on your part.

Reading a few other posts you have made in this thread, is it correct that you don’t have any problems with natural selection and micro evolution?

One thing that you don’t understand is that macro evolution is just micro evolution on a large timescale.  If you can accept micro evolution then you already accept macro evolution.  The reason you don’t accept macro evolution however is likely due to your misunderstandings.

So what exactly is it about macro evolution that you do not agree with?  What makes macro evolution not likely to be a possibility?

Usually, people are unsure about macro evolution because they have the concept of kinds or species ingrained into their experience since they were children.  If we look at species today, they seem so very different that it must be impossible.  This is understandable.  Evolution doesn’t really work that way though.

The Theory of Evolution doesn’t say that cats will evolve into dogs.  Thinking about macro evolution in the context of one species evolving into another is an incorrect way to look at what the Theory of Evolution is.  There is no crocoduck, and there shouldn’t be according to the theory of evolution.  Amazingly, there really isn’t any such thing as kinds or species.  The only way we actually classify species is if one group of creatures can’t breed with another.  Once breeding and offspring is no longer possible between two groups of creatures, they are considered different species.

Take for instance this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html which compares ape skulls and human skulls, perhaps you can show me the clear line dividing the ape species and human species.  Not only are creationists not at all sure where the line separating two species is but so are paleontologists, taxonomists and zoologists.  Then again, anyone who understands the theory of evolution knows there is no clear line dividing species.

Evolution or natural selection doesn’t have a goal.    Apes aren’t going to evolve into Humans.  Cows aren’t going to evolve into Whales.  No species which exists today is going to evolve into another species which exists today.  That is not at all what the theory of evolution predicts (actually if that happened it would disprove the theory of evolution).  It’s not like there was a big book of species and someone picks that one species is going to evolve into this other species.

The way evolution works for example is you start with species A.  So after millions of years, two groups of species A separate and go there different ways in search of food or shelter, etc etc.  These two groups of species A are separated from each other for millions of years until eventually, they can’t interbreed anymore, they’ve become genetically incompatible.  Actually, what has happened is now both are very different from the original species A and now we have species B and species C.  Now these species are still somewhat similar in appearance, but now imagine this happens millions of times over 10 or 20 million years.  Now extend that over a few hundred million years.  What you get is a very diverse population of creatures.  Over enough time and with enough space, enough isolated environments (and on Earth there are plenty), large populations all changing via natural selection, it is really quite obvious how accepting micro evolution but not macro evolution is very silly.

Really there is no difference between micro and macro besides timescale.  You are quite literally choosing to believe it is not possible to walk a mile even though you believe you can walk across a room.  There is an overwhelming amount of evidence which supports macro evolution and micro evolution is merely one bit of evidence that fits in with all of the other evidence such as DNA, fossil, and current anatomy of life.

If you look at the genetic and fossil history for all species you find that going back, multiple species have a common ancestor.  For instance, apes and humans have a common ancestor.  Apes didn’t evolve into humans, instead what actually happened is a common ancestor separated into two separate populations and each population evolved differently, one evolved into apes and the other into humans.  Eventually over a long period of time the two groups became very different in many ways.  While it is actually more complex than that, I’m putting it in simplistic terms to address a common misconception of the theory of evolution.

Quote from ggturner:

Such arrogance and prejudice on your part.

You might want to look in the mirror my friend.  You have displayed the arrogance. You have displayed prejudice against scientists and science that doesn’t conform with your beliefs.

Dear sevenpatch,

No one has any evidence for macro-evolution. It has not been observed. Since such evolution would require spontaneous increase in genetic information, it is impossible.

Gg you sound ungrateful, all patch did was help you with yr sloppy thinking.

I thought you being a biology teacher would appreciate it.


few coincidences here both patch and yr son are IT Guys,, could patch be someone telling you something ? Just a wild guess.

and so what of yr list should i post a list of teachers with child offences or cheating in standardised tests or child molesting christians or christians that steal money from people.

would that prove anything about xtianity or teachers, i think not but it would be alengthy list.

vk4:  few coincidences here both patch and yr son are IT Guys

Big difference between IT guys and software developers.  I'll let sevenpatch fill you in on that.  That is all I will comment on from your post.  The rest isn't worth my time.

Since I do teach AP biology, though, I will comment on micro versus macro evolution.  Microevolution has to do with changes in allele frequencies within a population.  Speciation lies between microevolution and macroevolution.  Speciation occurs when a population diverges genetically from its ancestral population and that results in reproductive isolation.  Macroevolution has to do with changes over enormous periods of time that results in the origin of new taxonomic groups.   So, since I do not agree with the evolutionary timeline for the age of the Earth, I do not agree with macroevolution.   I teach it, but I don't agree with it.   

Believe in evolution if you so choose, I can't change your mind.  And, you can't change my mind or my faith.  I will not engage you on this topic further.  It is pointless.  Go fulfill your obsession with someone else who wants to waste their time.  Life is too short and time is precious.   

 

 

Quote from Shtal:

Dear sevenpatch,

No one has any evidence for macro-evolution. It has not been observed. Since such evolution would require spontaneous increase in genetic information, it is impossible.

What exactly are you expecting to observe?  Are you capable of observing the precise moment when a child becomes an adult?  If you can make such a determination, what are you basing your determination on?

Such evolution does not require a spontaneous increase in genetic information, although we already know that increases in genetic information do happen.  Why do you think spontaneous increase in genetic information is necessary?  How exactly are you determining what is possible and what is impossible?

Quote from vk4gsd:

few coincidences here both patch and yr son are IT Guys

Quote from ggturner

Big difference between IT guys and software developers.  I'll let sevenpatch fill you in on that.

You are correct ggturner, there is a big difference between IT guys and software developers although for the average person who doesn’t know a whole lot about computers, they probably don’t know what each does.

IT stands for Information Technology, and generally IT specialists work on the hardware and telecommunications side of computers (although they are capable of setting up and configuring the operating system for computers as well and managing the installation of software for example).  Of course that is a brief overview of what an IT specialist does, they do a lot of different things as well.

A software developer on the other hand knows code languages and can write software programs for an overall product which provides a service of some kind.  Generally a software developer has a solid background in mathematics and information theory.

Quote from ggturner:

Since I do teach AP biology, though, I will comment on micro versus macro evolution.  Microevolution has to do with changes in allele frequencies within a population.  Speciation lies between microevolution and macroevolution.  Speciation occurs when a population diverges genetically from its ancestral population and that results in reproductive isolation.  Macroevolution has to do with changes over enormous periods of time that results in the origin of new taxonomic groups.   So, since I do not agree with the evolutionary timeline for the age of the Earth, I do not agree with macroevolution.   I teach it, but I don't agree with it.

I can respect that.

Quote from ggturner:

And, you can't change my mind or my faith.

I’m not necessarily interested in changing your mind and I’m certainly not interested in changing your faith.

 In any case, I will respect your wish and will not pursue discussing this topic with you further. We can both certainly agree that life IS too short and time is very precious indeed.

Gg you are so lacking in integrity by the way you use deceipt to make a point and you ignore or worse lie about anything that doesn't fit yr supernatural/superstitious belief.


it is disgusting you get up in front of childand spread yr superstition posing as science education.



patches meet shtal, shtal patches. shtal has a blackbelt in hovind, craig, hams and sye. he verified no formal science qualifications but refuted chemistry, biology, geology, information theory, cosmology,physics and logic.


he believes god stopped thermodynamics for 40 days so some desert dwellers would not get sore feet and all animals were vegetarians before the fall and you can't know any knowledge except god is the only true fact to name a few. hopefully he will do the one about the candle for you to disprove carbon dating.

LOL! 

I named one of my kittens, Patches. And then I think of that song! I'll have to post it now, I suppose, lol

@SevenPatch: Any way, is there a significance to "Seven"  for you that is personal or universal? Just curious. And if you are going to be vk4's answer to be his helpmeet and champion combating the ills bestowed upon him by a rather stern and rigid parochial upbringing?

Just because GG teaches in a parochial school I don't think that is fair to automatically put her in the position of being attacked for all his past ills. She has her proscribed curricula and her own personal beliefs that she keeps separate. 

Maybe you could learn that trick yourself, vk4!