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

Re: Darwinism ignores over 60 years of molecular science

Expand Messages
  • stewart8724
    Charles: James A Shapiro quote mine: Creationists *are dealing with a form of religious belief on the evolution side*. Gluadys: Not a quote mine. A quote mine
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Charles:
      James A Shapiro quote mine: Creationists *are dealing with a form of religious belief on the evolution side*.

      Gluadys: Not a quote mine. A quote mine would misrepresent Shapiro's view. This does not.

      Charles P: Thank you, Gluadys, for interpreting the evidence the same way that I do.

      Stewart: ???? Is it me that's off my bonce?

      Charles P: I am interpreting Shapiro*s comment to mean that it is illogical to say *all the facts are on my side*.

      Gluadys: No relevant facts have been uncovered to date which do not support the theory of evolution.

      Charles P: Do you mean that it is impossible to find a relevant fact that contradicts natural genetic engineering?

      Stewart: Is this guy real?

      Gluadys: Why Shapiro would accuse fellow scientists of not recognizing the tentative nature of science, when virtually every book on the practice of science emphasizes this point, I don't know. Why he would see the "all the facts are on my side" as in conflict with this suggests he has problems with basic logic. Shapiro seems to have launched a false accusation against scientists here.

      Charles P: That is not the way in which I interpret the writings of Shapiro.

      Stewart: There's a surprise.

      Charles P: I just wish that all of us could discuss evidence without trying to pin a label on the opposition in order to discredit any ideas they may have. Too much time and effort is lost trying to make the opposition seem out of touch with reality.

      Stewart: We'll see how long this sentiment lasts.

      Charles P: You and others here on Origins Talk seem to be against natural genetic engineering just because I am the first one to bring the message here. If those scientists were not behind the time, they would have echoed favorably everything Shapiro reported in his book.

      Stewart: Not very long at all really.

      Charles : What excites me is that natural genetic engineering shows us is that living things are designed to evolve. Design is self evident and every science writer should embrace that verifiable evidence.

      Stewart: The 'evidence' is that design is 'self evident' in Charles' opinion, and Charles opinion is verified - (by Charles). If only we were all so scientifically methodical in our approach to reasoning. Of course our heads would also have to be full of semolina.

      Gluadys: So, Shapiro also favours the thesis of natural abiogenesis (life developed from non-life by a natural--not a miraculous--process), although he agrees, correctly, that science does not yet have a definitive theory about this event. Since this is what scientists have been saying for some time, why the implication that someone is not being truthful?

      Charles P: I don*t know what Shapiro thinks. Maybe if you would read his book, you could answer those questions for us.

      Stewart: Read the book and tell us what Shapiro thinks Glaudys. It seems Charles reading it was a waste of time.

      Charles: From 1917 to the present, there is global warming. That is all that the empirical and verifiable evidence shows us. Science does not tell us what to do about it.

      Stewart: An intelligent person might think it enough that science tells us why it is happening. An intelligent person might take the knowledge of what's causing it and be able to decide what to do about it without the prior consent of scientists.

      Charles P: I agree with you, David. If the questions about climate change cannot be framed so that the answers for what to do about climate change can be tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not science.

      Stewart: So we might as well do nothing, or better still buy bigger cars, burn more fossil fuels and keep doing it until science can show us verifiable evidence that indicates a method of stopping global warming. It's the only way to force those lazy scientists to tell us what to do.

      Charles P: What does Richard Dawkins say about molecular science in his book? It seems that Jerry A Coyne ignores over 60 years of molecular science in his book, *Why Evolution Is True*. The
      National Center for Science Education seems to ignore over 60 years of molecular science on their website.

      D R Lindberg: Most if not all of molecular biology was discovered by scientists who accept "Darwinism." So your remark appears to be gibberish. Or is it that in your vocabulary, "ignore" means "work on and research every day of your professional life"?

      Charles P: It seems that James A Shapiro is correct that Darwinism ignores over 60 years of molecular science.

      Charles P: I am bilingual and bicultural. I was born and raised in Texas. I now live in Idaho. I lived and worked in management in the Mexico City area for 18 years. I am a certified Spanish / English interpreter. I retired after 14 years as an over-the-phone work-at-home interpreter. For most of my life I have worked in management for science and industry. I have interpreted for both cultures and both languages in a myriad of situations including areas of science, medicine, legal, financial, etc. I
      had to pass tests in BOTH languages to become certified. If you understood human behavior from my perspective, you would lighten up and enjoy the messages on Origins Talk a lot more.

      Stewart: Charles was a professional interpreter! I can't tell you how much this made me laugh. (a lot, I can tell you that for nothing).

      Charles P: You are correct, David, I am guilty of bogosity = humorous and nonstandard.

      James A Shapiro: One reason Darwinism has failed to convince skeptics may be that it ignores over 60 years of molecular science.
      Charles P: What does Richard Dawkins say about molecular science in his book? It seems that Jerry A Coyne ignores over 60 years of molecular science in his book, *Why Evolution Is True*. The National Center for Science Education seems to ignore over 60 years of molecular science on their website.
      Charles P: It seems that James A Shapiro is correct that Darwinism ignores over 60 years of molecular science.

      DRL: I've been watching some more of those HHMI lectures I have mentioned to you before. That's all they talk about.
      Examples:
      The Double Life of RNA Potent Biology: Stem Cells, Cloning and Regeneration Clockwork Genes. If I can find these examples just off the top of my head, anybody who is
      really informed could undoubtedly think of far more. Actually, Dawkins does talk about various aspects of microbiology in his book. I don't have Coyne's book yet. Are you suggesting that it was creationists or IDists who brought us molecular biology? Can you give us some names and what they discovered? That would be interesting.

      Charles:
      James A Shapiro: One reason Darwinism has failed to convince skeptics may be that it ignores over 60 years of molecular science.
      Charles P: Jerry A Coyne and Darwinism ignore over 60 years of molecular science. Natural genetic engineering has thousands of references to empirical and verifiable evidence.

      David Williams: You keep repeating this. Do you know anything about molecular biology besides what you read on bogus websites.?
      A lot of Americans have not had a good science education. They would not know the difference between molecular science and gas holes.

      Charles P: I probably know more than you do, David, but that is not important. This debate is not about you and me.

      Stewart: Yeah David you (know nothing about molecular biology) idiot. Did you ever get paid for interpreting scientific and economic stuff?

      Charles: James A Shapiro: One reason Darwinism has failed to convince skeptics may be that it ignores over 60 years of molecular science.
      Charles P: Why would anyone not be interested in the molecular science descriptions for the biological processes involved in the origin and diversity of life?

      Stewart: Is the answer - Because molecular biology is almost as boring as you are?

      P.S. Can anyone tell me if there are there any scientists working in any fields relating to evolution, who haven't been involved in biological research in, ooh I don't know, let's say the last fifty to sixty years?


      ...
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      > D R Lindberg: I've been watching some more of those HHMI lectures I have
      > mentioned to you before. That's all they talk about. Examples: The Double
      > Life of RNA, Potent Biology: Stem Cells, Cloning and
      > Regeneration, Clockwork Genes. If I can find these examples just off the
      > top of my head, anybody who is really informed could undoubtedly think of
      > far more. Actually, Dawkins does talk about various aspects of
      > microbiology in his book. I don't have Coyne's book yet. Are you
      > suggesting that it was creationists or IDists who brought us molecular
      > biology? Can you give us some names and what they discovered? That would
      > be interesting.
      >
      > Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29931
      > I subscribe to the HHMI newsletters and I have Sean B Carroll*s videos
      > about The Making Of The Fittest. You might recall our discussions about
      > the stickleback fish evolution done by HHMI scientists.
      >
      > Charles P:
      > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?s=James+Shapiro&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB
      > A good idea has many fathers; a bad idea dies a bastard. I don't know
      > why
      > Larry Moran and Jerry A Coyne have attacked Shapiro and his book. I don't
      > know why they ignore molecular science. I don't know who is the father of
      > molecular biology. Creationists and Intelligent Design science writers
      > like *molecular science* and some old Theory of Evolution science writers
      > think it is bogus BEFORE they read the book.
      >
      > James A Shapiro: Evo-Devo attempts to integrate the results of molecular
      > developmental biology, genomics, and paleontology.
      >
      > 1 One of the principal observations in the Evo-Devo field that studies the
      > evolution of development networks has been the emergence of novel protein
      > domains at critical stages where there have been morphological advances.
      >
      > 2 References #1014, #1015 - #1018: 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.
      >
      > 3 Reference #1063 - #1067: The traditional view has been that related
      > species differ in their repertoire of individual *genes*. But a more
      > contemporary Evo-Devo perspective is that much of morphological change in
      > evolution occurs by modification of expression through alteration of
      > enhancers and other transcriptional regulatory signals, as well as distinct
      > patterns of epigenetic formatting [1063â€"1067]. Comparing mice and men, the
      > *genes* stay largely the same, but their deployment differs. The bones,
      > ligaments, muscles, skin, and other tissues are similar, but their
      > morphogeneses and growth follow distinct patterns. In other words, humans
      > and mice share most of their proteins, and the most obvious differences in
      > morphology and metabolism can be attributed to distinct regulatory patterns
      > in late embryonic and postnatal development.
      >
      > 4 Any knowledgeable cell biologist or Evo-Devo specialist could
      > easily expand the list of individual protein and DNA inventions. The
      > end results of all this evolutionary creativity include such wonders as
      > flowering plants and bilaterally symmetrical animal body plans.
      >
      > Charles P: Sean B Carroll of the HHMI is referenced three times in
      > Shapiro*s book for his work in Evo-Devo. He is another of my heroes.
      >
      > Charles P (September 5, 2011):
      > http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/25995 I like Sean B
      > Carroll and I believe that he is an open, honest, and sincere scientist.
      > His research with living species is very respectable. The creative power of
      > hox genes to shape evolutionary change is a giant step forward in recent
      > years. This kind of research can be very valuable to scientists as they
      > discover how the same DNA sequences work in
      > different species.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.