Science vs. Creationism

[Zulu]

....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!"

Not helping your case!!!!!

 

[One Brow]

.and that opposing facts and observable proof to the contrary is not even considered for a nano-second!"

First you have to come up with opposing facts and observable proof, as opposed to out-of-context facts and unsupported diatribes, then you get to complain.

 

[PearlWatson]

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".

That's what it is, but it could be talked about in the whole foods store as well since it deals in nutrition.

 

[PearlWatson]

Practitioner? Of what?

Medicine

 

[PearlWatson]

2) if the person had a higher knowledge of Genetics than me, then he would have quickly realized how insufficient his cog-analogy is,

There is no doubt that he has a higher knowledge of Genetics than you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings that someone might know more than you, but just get over yourself.

Even in your lesser knowledge you support the cog-analogy and even bolded that support.

dalamon: They need to work in unison, and one cannot encompass the functions of both.

 

[PearlWatson]

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.

Like the time you called your wife a fish.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

First you have to come up with opposing facts and observable proof, as opposed to out-of-context facts and unsupported diatribes, then you get to complain.

Come to that, I'd like to see a single testable hypothesis derived directly from ID theory.

I find these debates about evolution fascinating in a way. People with no scientific training, or no training in the relevant scientific fields, talking authoritatively about what the relevant science is and why the overwhelming percentage of scientists with the relevant scientific training are wrong.

Do these same people on going into surgery deign to tell their surgeon how to do it? Or do they try to argue with structural engineers about how to design bridges? What is it about evolution relative to other sciences that turns so many lay people so suddenly into scientific experts?

 

[PearlWatson]

Come to that, I'd like to see a single testable hypothesis derived directly from ID theory.

I find these debates about evolution fascinating in a way. People with no scientific training, or no training in the relevant scientific fields, talking authoritatively about what the relevant science is and why the overwhelming percentage of scientists with the relevant scientific training are wrong.

Do these same people on going into surgery deign to tell their surgeon how to do it? Or do they try to argue with structural engineers about how to design bridges? What is it about evolution relative to other sciences that turns so many lay people so suddenly into scientific experts?

Darwinists ain't fixing anything.
Darwinists ain't designing anything.
They are just making up absurd stories.

 

[One Brow]

Like the time you called your wife a fish.

Not because she is similar to a fish, but because she is one, as am I, as are all human, primates, mammals, etc. It a matter of ancestry, not similarity. Now, were I to call her a trout, a salmon, etc., that would be inaccurate, because she is not a trout or a salmon.

 

[One Brow]

They are just making up absurd stories.

The only answer to the question.

 

[PearlWatson]

Did I resist the possibility of design overall in this thread?

I don't know what you mean.

Design and accidental generation are dichotomous.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't know what you mean.

Design and accidental generation are dichotomous.

in your mind, perhaps. Try and stretch that imagination of yours, dear.

Medicine

I am not a practitioner of medicine.

That's what it is, but it could be talked about in the whole foods store as well since it deals in nutrition.

Find an example of this impacting any of the (very many) genes mentioned in this thread.

There is no doubt that he has a higher knowledge of Genetics than you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings that someone might know more than you, but just get over yourself.

It would only hurt my feelings if you could prove it, dear. Please, find an example of a post of mix being off-based, and describe why in that context your chosen Geneticist has a higher knowledge than myself.

Simply saying "he has a higher knowledge than you JUST BECAUSE" is not convincing in the least of senses. This isn't me being over myself-- how about you get over yourself, and provide actual justification behind your claims instead of spouting off your baseless, empty assertions as fact.

Even in your lesser knowledge you support the cog-analogy and even bolded that support.

dalamon: They need to work in unison, and one cannot encompass the functions of both.

Wrong. "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."

Again, you selectively quote an excerpt from my post, and ignore how that this co-theory can be debunked. Your tactics are pathetic, your justifications are embarrassing, and your blinders are on full-blast.

I'm done with this conversation. I hope you've enjoyed making a fool of yourself, and not providing a single concerted defense against any of the scientific 'data' that you've proposed-- "well he has a PhD so he MUST know more than you Dalamon!!1!!1!" doesn't count as a legitimate defense, btw. Pathetic. Hopeless. There's a reason that your posts will never gain traction amongst the many, or provide any enlightenment to posters on here.

Enjoy that feeling of being schooled by a 20 year old. Tschüss.