Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Living things are designed to evolve.

Expand Messages
  • stewart8724
    Charles P: I read your opinions, but I did not see any characteristics of science in your disagreement. Which reasons for your disagreement can be tested and
    Message 1 of 38 , Oct 26 11:40 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Charles P: I read your opinions, but I did not see any characteristics of
      science in your disagreement. Which reasons for your disagreement can be
      tested and reproduced by others?

      Stewart: All of them. Do you need a diagram?
      You don't see my observation that cells have no central nervous system, as a restricting factor in their ability to think? You can't see that this observation and the resulting conclusion is easily testable?
      Let me see if I can help you Charles. You have a wee look through as many scientific publications as you can lay your hands on, (it might help if some of them were not written by James Shapiro). Try and find an example of something that can (think, reason, make determinations and construct relationships with its own kind) without the benefit of a brain. This is an example of how you could test my scientific objection to Shapiro's claims.
      I'm sure you'll find that whether it's a living thing or a pair of sun glasses, without a brain it can't make conscious decisions.

      Characteristics of science:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
      to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
      "experts," is unscientific.

      Stewart: And yet you continue to ask others to accept Shapiro's ideas despite the fact that they make no scientific sense. You are determined to have us accept them based only on your faith in them.

      Kamran: Forgive me for being harsh on you but I have this aversion for
      your particular style of drive-by assertions without any effort to explain
      them except for claiming all supporting evidence and references are written
      somewhere. In this you have a lot in common with mainstream evolutionists.

      Charles P: I wish that we knew each other in person. My only interest
      here on Origins Talk is the empirical and verifiable description for the
      origin and diversity of life. I know that you disagree with "mainstream
      evolutionists" because they just make up stuff and they concluded that the
      20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution is true and that anyone who
      disagrees is "anti-science".

      Stewart: Charles you have no interest in verifiable science, so please stop repeating that it's your only goal. "Mainstream evolutionists make stuff up"? A very bold claim, so give us examples of the kind of "stuff" that they made up.

      Charles P: I was surprised that you reject empirical and verifiable
      conclusions that are based upon 1,162 references.
      My purpose is to show you and others here on Origins Talk that I did not
      make this stuff up.

      Stewart: You couldn't have.

      Charles P:
      Some people use "evolution" to refer to something as simple as small changes in the sizes of bird beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching. Used one way, "evolution" isn't controversial at all; used another way, it's hotly debated".

      Stewart: Whether altering the size of a birds beak or combining it with other such changes to form a new species, evolution is evolution is evolution. Exactly the same process is at work in both cases, which is why Kamran is absolutely correct in insisting that if one cannot occur, neither can the other. If we know that one can occur, (which we do) it is inevitable that the other must also.
      You claim that one is hotly contested simply because you are the one that contests it, and at the same time say that the other is totally uncontroversial, when clearly Kamran disagrees with both.

      Charles P: Kamran, I do pay attention to your ideas. Maybe you noticed
      that my overuse of CAPITAL LETTERS and "too many quotes" and too much
      repetition... repetition... repetition... over and over... saying the same
      old stuff again and again... is less frequent thanks to your comments about
      Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by...................blah blah blah,
      Molecular biology:
      http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/molecular+biology The branch of
      biology that deals with the nature of biological phenomena at the molecular
      level through the study of DNA and RNA, proteins, and other macromolecules
      involved in genetic information and cell function.

      based upon 1,162 references. I knew that it was too
      much to ask that you and everyone to read a copy of "Evolution: A View From
      The 21st Century" by James A Shapiro.
      Charles P: Constructive criticism is a good thing. I learn from my mistakes. I learn from my mistakes. I learn from my mistakes.
      (Is this EmpiRiCAL eVidEncE of IRONY or oF SARCASM?)

      Charles P: The 20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution assumed
      that living things are not designed. The 21st Century version of The
      Theory of Evolution assumes that living things are designed.

      Stewart: This is the kind of arse gravy that illustrates your contempt for facts, and your hypocrisy in lecturing others on the scientific validity of their conclusions. Both of those sentences are 21st century bollocks! The 21st century evolution you describe exists only in the abandoned recesses of your mind. The 'actual' theory of Evolution assumes nothing, it is a science and as such isn't in the business of making assumptions on design.

      Francis Crick: http://bevets.com/equotesc.htm Biologists must constantly
      keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

      Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick I do not agree with
      the above quote by Francis Crick.

      Stewart: That's a shock! And you're normally so receptive to the doyens of science.

      Gluadys:  What I question is your interpretation of his work as
      anti-Darwin. I have seen nothing from Shapiro which would support that

      Charles P:  Thank you for your question.  Here are two critics of Dr.
      Shapiro.  Neither critic presents any empirical and verifiable evidence to
      contradict the nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering.

      Stewart: This reminds me of a story.
      During one of those local radio 'request phone-ins' in the wee small hours. The presenter answers a call:-
      Welcome to Radio Effervescent, on air till 03a.m. Who's calling?
      (caller) Hello I'm jack.
      (presenter) Great to have you on the show, how are you Jack?
      (caller) Well I'm not too great actually, I'm just in from the hospital where they had to put a cast on my leg cause I got hit by a car on the way back from my dad's funeral earlier on today. I had to wait ages for a taxi due to the fact I couldn't get in touch with my wife to come and pick me up. Then when I got in I found the note she left, telling me she's emptied the account and run away with the next door neighbour's sister, apparently she's from Lesbia.
      (presenter) That's great Jack, hope you're enjoying the show. Here's some Elvis!

      Some people substitute social niceties for paying attention.


      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      > Stewart: I disagree which is OK. I have given you scientific reasons for my
      > disagreement.
      > .
      > Charles P: I read your opinions, but I did not see any characteristics of
      > science in your disagreement. Which reasons for your disagreement can be
      > tested and reproduced by others?
      > Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
      > definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
      > questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
      > verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
      > tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
      > science.
      > Characteristics of science:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
      > to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
      > "experts," is unscientific.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Tia Ghose: http://www.livescience.com/25190-genetic-roots-vertebrate-intelligence.html Cognitive Big Bang Discovered in Tiny Sea Worm. Several brainy
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 5, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Tia Ghose:
        'Cognitive Big Bang' Discovered in Tiny Sea Worm. Several "brainy"
        that were duplicated in a tiny sea creature nearly 550 million years ago
        may have led to the massive expansion in intelligence in vertebrate
        species, two new studies have found.

        James A Shapiro: References #40, #41: Life requires cognition at all

        James A Shapiro: References #93 - #95: We can think of this two-level
        proofreading process as equivalent to a quality-control system in human
        manufacturing. Like human quality-control systems, it is based on
        surveillance and correction (cognitive processes) rather than mechanical
        precision. The multistep nature of proofreading is typical of many control
        processes in cells,
        where final precision is achieved by a sequence of two or more interactions
        that are each themselves inherently less precise. In this regard, the most
        applicable cybernetic models are fuzzy logic control systems. In such
        systems, accurate regulation occurs by overlaying multiple imprecise
        (“fuzzy”) feedback controls arranged so that each successive event results
        in greater precision.

        James A Shapiro: In other words, we have numerous precise molecular
        descriptions of cell cognition, which range all the way from bacterial
        nutrition to mammalian cell biology and development. The cognitive,
        informatic view of how living cells operate and utilize their genomes is
        radically different from the genetic determinism perspective articulated
        most succinctly, in the
        last century, by Francis Crick’s famous “Central Dogma of Molecular
        Biology.” So it is appropriate to direct our attention to evaluating the
        validity of Crick’s formulation in light of 21st Century knowledge.

        James A Shapiro: A shift from thinking about gradual selection of
        localized random changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory
        network-influenced cell systems is a major conceptual change. It replaces
        the “invisible hands” of geological time and natural selection with
        cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification. The
        emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic and information-based rather
        than stochastic.

        Stochastic: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stochastic Involving chance
        or probability.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.