Science vs. Creationism

[Deleted member 848]

Still waiting on Pearl to justify my label in her eyes as an atheist Darwinist.

 

[PearlWatson]

In the context of this argument it would be nutrigenetics, not nutrigenomics. It's an important difference.

Both disciplines were touched on.

What babe was talking about was nutrigenomics. The idea that increased starch led to increased gene duplication within a subject.

Your chart represents nutrigenetics. Comparison between populations in amount of duplication.

 

[PearlWatson]

lol k...
It's obvious that your knowledge of genetics is lacking, as you approach this 'cog-issue' in a narrow, one-dimensional manner. You need to find better justifications of ID tbh.
maybe both cogs were created before the sophisticated circulation system was developed. Maybe the cog served an alternative function (at a less efficient rate) upon its creation, but it ended up being best suited for its eventual role. Expand your scope of possibilities, Pearl.

Maybe...maybe....you should take your own advice. It could ultimately lead to being a better practitioner.

The cog analogy originated from a dude with more knowledge in genetics than you, and is no more narrow than the underlying assumptions of Darwinism are, so don't worry about my "justifications."

Your use of the word creation conflicts with your Darwinian framework, so it is a barrier to my understanding your perspective.

 

[PearlWatson]

Still waiting on Pearl to justify my label in her eyes as an atheist Darwinist.

2 reasons I didn't consider you when I made that statement:

You seemed more concerned about showing off your genetics knowledge than being a Darwin missionary...until now.

If you believe in a god who requires abstinence or sobriety of you, I don't understand your resistance to even the possibility of design, unless you are really an atheist at heart.

 

[One Brow]

They play completely different roles in the body.

First, thank you very much for your explanation. I got a lot out of it.

Second, as long as there is any similarity at all between two roles, those who do not wish to believe new roles will occur will claim they are basically the same.

 

[One Brow]

Biology/Genetics are the sciences. Darwinism is the ideology.

Darwinism is then an ideology with almost no followers. You might as well talk about Einsteinism in physics; it makes as little sense and is equally out of touch with reality.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Maybe...maybe....you should take your own advice. It could ultimately lead to being a better practitioner.

Practitioner? Of what? Instead of making empty statements, could you please point out which one of my justifications are loose, inaccurate, or misleading? You never address the papers I mention-- you simply resort to empty attacks, and baseless assertions. It's amusing, and a little sad quite frankly.

The cog analogy originated from a dude with more knowledge in genetics than you, and is no more narrow than the underlying assumptions of Darwinism are, so don't worry about my "justifications."

This makes me laugh, and reminds me of an earlier post of yours:

1) the title of PhD is meaningless-- just because someone has a three-letter title, this does not in any way mean that their knowledge of science is automatically superior to that of an individual without that distinction. We should base our opinions on people based on the construction of their arguments, not on the parchments of paper that they have framed on their wall from some random college. This position is much more in-line with the right-winger non 'fact-checkers', and is a criticism on the environment of academia-- which is why I find it so funny that you are so infatuated with these 'titles'. Who would have thought that Pearl has some veiled Leftist-dogmafied habits in her intellectual discourse. What a communist.
2) if the person had a higher knowledge of Genetics than me, then he would have quickly realized how insufficient his cog-analogy is, which leads me to two addumptions: a) his knowledge of this particular field of Genetics is lacking b) he is wilfully ignoring a logical aspect of mammalian genetics in order to suit an agenda.

Your use of the word creation conflicts with your Darwinian framework, so it is a barrier to my understanding your perspective.

Expound.

Both disciplines were touched on.

What babe was talking about was nutrigenomics. The idea that increased starch led to increased gene duplication within a subject.

Your chart represents nutrigenetics. Comparison between populations in amount of duplication.

Agree to disagree.

First, thank you very much for your explanation. I got a lot out of it.

Second, as long as there is any similarity at all between two roles, those who do not wish to believe new roles will occur will claim they are basically the same.

Thank you. I predicted that as I typed it out, but I figured that even though PearlWatson would predictably come to that conclusion, perhaps there are other reads of this thread who might learn something from my posts. There truly isn't much that I know more than the average bloke (particularly politics, economics, history, probably even philosophy), so I figure that I'm responsible for sharing what I do know, if some might not know it.

 

[Deleted member 848]

2 reasons I didn't consider you when I made that statement:

You seemed more concerned about showing off your genetics knowledge than being a Darwin missionary...until now.

How have I become a Darwinist missionary? Tell me: is being against ID automatically a determination that one is a Darwinist? Wtf even is a Darwinist?

If you believe in a god who requires abstinence or sobriety of you, I don't understand your resistance to even the possibility of design, unless you are really an atheist at heart.

Did I resist the possibility of design overall in this thread? Cuz quite frankly, all I've been doing is shooting down the justifications of design that you seem to be relying on for argument. I've spent 10 pages talking about why one of the researchers (that you cited to) is trash, and justifying why it's incorrect.

It's amusing to watch you when you make assumptions on posters, and then you backpedal when those assumptions are wrong. You truly have no idea where I stand-- do you It's cute to watch. Keep guessing tho. I'll just keep deconstructing your arguments in the mean-time.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

so Science is an ideology-free grasp of things?

#Amazing

waiting.....

 

[♪alt13]

How have I become a Darwinist missionary? Tell me: is being against ID automatically a determination that one is a Darwinist? Wtf even is a Darwinist?

dood you're not a Darwinist you are a Darwiniac.

Btw thanx for scaring the **** out of me. Now that I know that I have not one but two goblins inside me I may never sleep again

 

[babe]

It seems like you are talking about the science of nutrigenomics.
It is how food talks to your genes.
The information your body receives from the food you eat turns your genes on and off.

Not exactly. . . . I've never heard of "nutrigenomics", that sounds like some hokey new-age non-science feel-good natural philosophy or something. . . . you'd hear about in the wholefoods/herbal remedy store. . . .

all I know is some specific triggers exist which when "pulled" will cause some genes to be actively expressed. The question I asked was whether there could exist analogous triggers which when pulled would cause a gene to be copied some "extra' times in forming a reproductive cell with haploid genetic character, which would make the next generation better adapted for life under the prevailing regime. Might work something like a computer virus that only becomes active, say, in an Iranian nuclear research lab. . . . Might explain how drug-resistant bacteria develop. . .. .

While I realize I still have not made an argument that proves anything against "natural selection", the fact that our genetics has features which seem to be "designed" on purpose to make life more resilient to changing environments does make me wonder about the whole higher level of organization at least implying a possible "design".

 

[carolinajazz]

dood you're not a Darwinist you are a Darwiniac.

....love that word! Definition: "An individual who supports and believes in Darwins theory of evolution so strongly that he's totally overwhelmed by even the slightest suggestion that man and animal life is the result of organic evolution.....and that opposing facts and observable proof to the contrary is not even considered for a nano-second!"