Evolution answers

[jaydeehess]

Fabulous book, which I think I mentioned in this thread once already.

Just purchased the e-book version. Reasonably priced at $11.99 CDN

 

[tsig]

Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.

Except the ones that lead to life destroying devices?

Are scientists frauds or fiends?

 

[tsig]

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

"But we have deployed the Ignorance Artillery Battery, they have unlimited ammo".

 

[tsig]

Now we have a new classification of scientists(kooky scientists). We started with scientists who admit to fraud some 2%, then we found 14% admit they know someone guilty of fraud and now we have kooky scientists to contend with.

How does a geneticist compare with a paleontologist?

All geneticists are small from occupying little cubicle offices and pale from being indoors, they have one eye larger than the other from staring in microscopes and are named Marcus or Marcie, paleontologists are tall so they can see over the terrain, tanned from the sun and large and strong so they can lift large stones (of which they have a big pair) they are named Dirk or Derrick (there are no women in this manly undertaking).


Hope this helps.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Just purchased the e-book version. Reasonably priced at $11.99 CDN

I predict you will love it.

It's one of the few books on the subject that, for me, has held up well to more than one reading - I'm probably due for another.

And once through the first time, just flipping it open to a random "tale" is a good way to enjoy it as well.

One tiny niggle: I did find his occasional insertion of politics a bit jarring and out of place. But a very minor blemish on what I still hold is a masterwork.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
JiT, I'm actually beginning to feel a little sorry for you. This is like watching a tennis match between a pro (say, one of the Williams sisters) at the top of her game and someone who's never picked up a racket in their life; my eyes keep going back and forth between a volley well served (or handled) and total flubs.

O rmaybe watching American Idol at the beginning of the season, with the pathetic wannabes who suffer from musical Dunning-Kruger Syndrome- you can only laugh so long before lapsing into an uncomfortable silence.

Oblivious is no way to go through life, son.

Those examples you used very rarely happen in real life. You need to find better examples for your theories just as much as scientists have to find better ways to earn a living beside engaging in fraudulent research papers.

Wow. I don't know what "theories" you thought I was trying to illustrate by those examples; but you're the only example I need here of the perfect Dunning-Kruger- you literally do not know anything about the theory you're so desperate to tear down.

Now it's me back to my uncomfortable silence, since you seem so determined to persist in your pathetic obliviousness...

 

[justintime]

All geneticists are small from occupying little cubicle offices and pale from being indoors, they have one eye larger than the other from staring in microscopes and are named Marcus or Marcie, paleontologists are tall so they can see over the terrain, tanned from the sun and large and strong so they can lift large stones (of which they have a big pair) they are named Dirk or Derrick (there are no women in this manly undertaking).


Hope this helps.

I was expecting to hear the difference between a geneticist and a paleontologist is about $75,000. You may be right about staring into a microscope all day where as most paleontologist no longer look for fossil remains but are employed by coal and oil petroleum industries searching for recoverable fossils fuels. That is why you don't find any women in this field anymore.

Is it true geneticists have an inflated view of the world because everything they see is magnified several hundred times? We know from Mendel both parents contribute to their offspring genetic traits. How many more iterations of this simple process need to be amplified?

 

[pantsorama]

I was expecting to hear the difference between a geneticist and a paleontologist is about $75,000. You may be right about staring into a microscope all day where as most paleontologist no longer look for fossil remains but are employed by coal and oil petroleum industries searching for recoverable fossils fuels. That is why you don't find any women in this field anymore.

Is it true geneticists have an inflated view of the world because everything they see is magnified several hundred times? We know from Mendel both parents contribute to their offspring genetic traits. How many more iterations of this simple process need to be amplified?

First you disprove god, and now you advocate Lysenkoism. I think you are a godless commie.

 

[Dinwar]

...where as most paleontologist no longer look for fossil remains but are employed by coal and oil petroleum industries searching for recoverable fossils fuels.

You're about three decades out of date here, and completely misrepresented what was going on. Fossil fuel companies used to employ paleontologists, to do microfossil analysis in order to determine where fossil fuels could be found (a lot of biochronology was determined this way). Unfortunately for paleontology, that money has pretty much dried up--we've done most of it, and there are better technologies (both for finding and for extracting resources).

That is why you don't find any women in this field anymore.

Really? Fully half the paleontologists I know are women. The real issue is misogynistic old farts, who are clinging to a sexist past, but they're becoming significantly more rare. The new guard--people like me--just don't care about your plumbing, we're more concerned with how well you do your job.

Is it true geneticists have an inflated view of the world because everything they see is magnified several hundred times?

No.

We know from Mendel both parents contribute to their offspring genetic traits. How many more iterations of this simple process need to be amplified?

Mendel's view of genetics was over-simplified.

 

[Retrograde]

Is it true geneticists have an inflated view of the world because everything they see is magnified several hundred times? We know from Mendel both parents contribute to their offspring genetic traits. How many more iterations of this simple process need to be amplified?

And that, gentle beings, is the crux of the problem: there's no point in funding any more research or development because we already know everything. No point in learning anything new or on our own when we have revealed wisdom.

 

[aggle-rithm]

And that, gentle beings, is the crux of the problem: there's no point in funding any more research or development because we already know everything. No point in learning anything new or on our own when we have revealed wisdom.

Yep. JIT's protests are all for naught. People are still going to keep learning new things about the world.

We'll let you know, justintime, when we've learned it all. It may take a while.

 

[Robrob]

Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.

Sentence by sentence:

1- True. How is this controversial?
2- Poorly written. Please repost.
3- Total woo.
4- Bogus claim.

 

[bruto]

Now we have a new classification of scientists(kooky scientists). We started with scientists who admit to fraud some 2%, then we found 14% admit they know someone guilty of fraud and now we have kooky scientists to contend with.

How does a geneticist compare with a paleontologist?

Paleontologists, resigned to being unpronounceable, have taken the plunge and become unfathomable as well.

Geneticists, defeated by the observation that man is genetically more like yeast than unlike it, have become sessile, and ferment fiendish schemes.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

"But we have deployed the Ignorance Artillery Battery, they have unlimited ammo".

Tha's because they keep putting the same empty shells back in the cannons over and over.
Then they yell "bang" and expect victory.

 

[catsmate]

1870 called. It wants it's anachronistic terminology back.

Telegraphed surely?

Here's mine: God is play-testing the universe. As each bug is found He sends in a bug report, and the real designer edits the code to fix the more game-breaking ones. That's why the genetic code is speghetti code--the designer is inefficient, and is reparing each bug as he finds them. Then god plays with the next generation, and the new bug reports go in. This also explains Jesus--the designer wanted this to be a first-person game, and God had to play-test that. It didn't go so well, so the plan was abandoned.

I'm imagining God sitting in some cubicle somewhere with a mouse and keyboard, sipping Red Bull and arguing with the dev team. "Dude, seriously, EXTERNAL GENITALIA? You know how many humans I've lost that way?! And whos' bright idea was it to add psychotropic drugs? Ever try to build a space-fairing civilization when all the people are getting high all the time?!" We are Dwarf Fortress for the divine!

Than you very bloody much, now I'm having flashbacks to my days in Microsoft in the '90s.

 

[icebear]

I have a friend I've grown up with who I often admired in the past. He has really turned to the far right over time though (didn't believe in man-made global warming, believes in some conspiracies). I've changed his mind on the global warming issue after presenting a lot of evidence (gathered from skepticalscience.com), but he still doesn't believe in the theory of Evolution.

Thoughts?

Guess what? Your friend is right about both evolution and "global warming(TM)". Not that the far right is correct about everything, but they are certainly right on those two topics.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

• The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s (decades of attempts to produce macroevolution in the lab produced only fruit flies).
• The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...). That in fact is the reason for the failure of the fruit fly experiments. Our whole living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in that picture was the information for a fruit fly.
• The discovery of bioelectrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
• The question of irreducible complexity.
• The Haldane Dilemma.
• The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs, including soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types, and actual radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains yielding dates of 20K - 40K prior to the present.
• The DNA analysis eliminating Neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
• The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types.
• The question of genetic entropy.
• The obvious evidence of design in nature.
• The arguments arising from pure probability considerations which Fred Hoyle noted.
• The question of computing elements at a cellular level ( http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video ).

Like I say, that's a minimal list.

 

[Corsair 115]

Guess what? Your friend is right about both evolution and "global warming(TM)". Not that the far right is correct about everything, but they are certainly right on those two topics.

If by 'certainly right' you mean 'hopelessly wrong and completely at odds with mountains of empirical data and established evidence acquired over many decades by scientists around the world' then yes.

 

[nathan]

JiT's main objection to ToE seems to be that 'you don't see it happening now'. Disregarding the falseness of that objection, you don't exactly see an intelligent designed doing it now. So why isn't that rejected for the same reason?

 

[icebear]

No real science theory would survive the history of disproofs involved with evolution.

Karl Popper established the criteria for what we call a pseudoscience: falsifiability or the lack of such. There's a point beyond which if the adherents of a doctrine or belief simply go on with it despite overwhelming disproof, then Popper's criteria is met since clearly, no disproof would ever suffice. Evolution is beyond that point.

 

[jaydeehess]

I predict you will love it.

It's one of the few books on the subject that, for me, has held up well to more than one reading - I'm probably due for another.

And once through the first time, just flipping it open to a random "tale" is a good way to enjoy it as well.

One tiny niggle: I did find his occasional insertion of politics a bit jarring and out of place. But a very minor blemish on what I still hold is a masterwork.

Only ten pages in but yes I am enjoying it. I enjoyed SJGould and Bill Bryson in the past, oh and physicist Weinberg ( ?? First name) so I'm not unfamiliar with science writing.
Love the instruction to not see evolution as having as its pinnacle, humans. Evolution is what it is, not what we desire it to be.
On the other hand creationism is what certain humans want it to be.