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

The Making of the Fittest

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist s work in their
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at
      mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work
      in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its
      offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.

      Charles P: I suggest that we all try to realize that the vast majority of
      people, regardless of their religion or non-religion, are intelligent and
      reasonable people. It is the arrogant extremists who make all of the
      unreasonable claims that cause the rest of us to take sides on a ridiculous
      debate that can never be resolved based upon philosophies alone.

      Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE The ENCODE project has
      clarified much confusion about biology as an information science. It would
      be wise for all of us to read as much as possible about the sciences of
      molecular biology, evo-devo, etc. that are answering the profound questions
      about the origin and diversity of life.

      Charles P: http://www.nnu.edu/academics/academic-departments/biology
      Northwest
      Nazarene University, here in Nampa, Idaho, offers a Bachelor of Science
      Degree in Biology. Real scientists are just like the rest of the
      population. They do not all think alike. Real scientists deserve our
      respect and should not be blamed for the unscientific writings by
      scientific writers with a distorted agenda of trying to impose their
      philosophies in science classes.

      Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
      wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
      creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
      contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.

      Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
      keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
      and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
      we have different interpretations of that evidence.

      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.

      Charles P: David, I share the same criticism that you do of the arrogant
      extremists who make all of the unscientific claims that are neither
      empirical nor verifiable.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
        > wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
        > creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
        > contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.
        >


        Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is empirically observable is that ID uses the same oratorical strategies & tactics, often even the same arguments, as evolution-denying creationists. So, the observation that it is a repackaging of creationism seems to be borne out by the evidence.


        > Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
        > keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
        > and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
        > we have different interpretations of that evidence.
        >


        It is not OK to have false interpretations of the evidence, or to treat false interpretations as justifiable "differences of opinion". It is also not OK to cherry-pick evidence (as much evolution-denying literature does) to give a false impression of supportive evidence when the more complete picture is clearly in favour of evolution.
      • Joe Martin
        From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
          Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest






          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Charles Palm
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM
          Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

          Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
          author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

          Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
          by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
          heroes even before he was on CBS.

          http://seanbcarroll.com/

          James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
          with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
          theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
          processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
          record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
          of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
          question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
          of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

          ****************************************************************************
          ****

          Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
          various times... etc.etc.etc.

          Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
          evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
          in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
          verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
          contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
          evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.

          LA> Yes Charles. However a number of evolutionists have clearly stated in
          their writings that it was on the scientific questions that the Creation
          scientists regularly routed their evolutionary opponents. Besides that the
          facts of the matter is that the Evolutionist debaters insisted that ONLY
          scientific arguments were to be debated anyway, and this was what was
          adhered to. The following is another example of an evolutionary Biologist's
          written statement;

          -----------------------

          "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
          winners in public debates

          JM> not scientific debates. YECs have never HAD a scientific debate where
          the merits, theories and hypotheses of the science of creation has been
          presented for scientific scutiny... WHY?? Because YEC has no scientific
          evidence to support any of the wild notions proposed by YEC science(sic).
          Public debating games are not science.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Charles Palm
          Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful. Charles P:
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
            author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

            Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/news/mesozoic20121026.html This is some of
            what Sean B Carroll is doing nowadays.

            Sean B. Carroll, HHMI vice president for science education and the film�s
            executive producer, will introduce the story to teachers on October 31
            during the second annual HHMI Night at the Movies at the NABT conference in
            Dallas, Texas. Following the film, Carroll will host a panel discussion
            with teachers attending the conference.

            http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Day the Mesozoic Died.
            33 minutes 43 seconds. Watch The Day the Mesozoic Died (720p HD, 2Mbps)

            ********************************************************************************
            Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28214 You
            will probably remember some of the 19 messages we discussed here on Origins
            Talk in April about stickleback fish research done by evo-devo researchers.

            Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Making of
            the Fittest: Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies 15 minutes 27 seconds.
            Watch Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies(720p HD, 2Mbps). Here is a new
            updated video with some new evidence that describes the diversity of life
            similarly to the way James A Shapiro does. The name Mike Shapiro appears
            on some stickleback slides.

            http://edenrcn.com/steering/shapiro.html Genetic architecture of
            evolutionary change. Sticklebacks are ideal model organisms for genetic and
            developmental studies of natural populations because different populations
            of these fish vary dramatically in skeletal structures, yet fish from
            throughout the Northern Hemisphere can be readily crossed in the laboratory
            for genetic mapping experiments. Previous work determined that cis-acting
            regulatory changes in the Pitx1 locus are responsible for hind fin (pelvis)
            loss in a population of threespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al., 2004,
            Nature). More recently, we showed that both similar and different genetic
            changes control pelvic reduction in ninespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al.
            2006, PNAS; Shapiro et al., 2009, Current Biology), a different genus of
            fish that last shared a common ancestor with threespine sticklebacks over
            10 million years ago. By comparing the genetic basis of other traits
            between the two different types of fish, we can critically test whether
            similar genetic mechanisms repeatedly underlie similar adaptive phenotypes,
            a topic of enduring interest to geneticists and evolutionary biologists.


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