4 ms·

...E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already has the capability to process citrat

by kirse 18y ago

...E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already has the capability to process citrate within it's genetic code, it's just typically not utilized. Forcing something to adapt to an extreme environment within its genetic confines is not macro-evolution, thats micro-evolutionary adaptation. Let me repeat it: E-coli that processes glucose already has the ability to process citrate within its DNA. All these experiments have shown is that when you force a species to adapt it will adapt as far as it's genetic boundaries enable it. Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology? I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable and (2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together. This Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not inherent nor observable in the universe like gravity, electricity, and the effects of nutrition. Unlike physics, which is often provable through observation and mathematics, MacroE is man's attempt to build the unobservable from what can be observed, and I have every right to be skeptical when we move beyond the bounds of explaining the observable to explaining the unobservable.

KirinDave 18y ago
Once again, dodging the genetic evidence for evolution. But I understand why you do it, it's even more irritating that recent fossil evidence if you've got an axe to grind. I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Completely unobservable. We have a mechanism that we know works on real, living creatures. We have evidence that such process has taken place all over the earth on a large scale. What we don't have is the exact process happening under glass so that all you can do is avert your gaze. And even if we had that the ID/biblical literalist movement would just move the goalposts again. They always do. (2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together. No different from physics. We have no unified theory, and many observations remain unexplained. The Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not something observable and inherent to the universe like gravity, electricity, or the effects of good nutrition. All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models. Science is not about proving absolute truth, it's about removing bias from observation and building models to fit those observations. Your metric of belief is strongly biased here, and only in the case of biology. From what you've said, it's because your religious beliefs. You're free to hold them, but I'm also free to point out that the scientific consensus is that your religious fundamentalism is completely unsupportable when it comes to how current species came into existence. Sorry, but it's false. And I'm not afraid to say that, and a growing number of people are standing up to the religious status-quo that has gradually been holding America back from scientific progress.
- kirse 18y ago
  Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models. Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation. Read this carefully: ---- Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson). ----.
  - KirinDave 18y ago
    Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." "Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!" Why isn't it good enough here? Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct. There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science. The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?). It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all. So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over. When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist... Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind. And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible. Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.

by kirse 18y ago

KirinDave 18y ago

Once again, dodging the genetic evidence for evolution. But I understand why you do it, it's even more irritating that recent fossil evidence if you've got an axe to grind. I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Completely unobservable. We have a mechanism that we know works on real, living creatures. We have evidence that such process has taken place all over the earth on a large scale. What we don't have is the exact process happening under glass so that all you can do is avert your gaze. And even if we had that the ID/biblical literalist movement would just move the goalposts again. They always do. (2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together. No different from physics. We have no unified theory, and many observations remain unexplained. The Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not something observable and inherent to the universe like gravity, electricity, or the effects of good nutrition. All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models. Science is not about proving absolute truth, it's about removing bias from observation and building models to fit those observations. Your metric of belief is strongly biased here, and only in the case of biology. From what you've said, it's because your religious beliefs. You're free to hold them, but I'm also free to point out that the scientific consensus is that your religious fundamentalism is completely unsupportable when it comes to how current species came into existence. Sorry, but it's false. And I'm not afraid to say that, and a growing number of people are standing up to the religious status-quo that has gradually been holding America back from scientific progress.

kirse 18y ago
Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in short-lived creatures. Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed models. Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and both are subject to man's interpretation. Read this carefully: ---- Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further deconstruct the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson). ----.
- KirinDave 18y ago
  Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box." "Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!" Why isn't it good enough here? Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct. There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no difference when it comes to science. The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed = MacroEvolution?). It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum" evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not hard at all. So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts again. Because it keeps happening over and over. When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal processes, we already know they exist... Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind. And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the "unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies? Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible tells me so, it's certainly possible, and I don't really believe your evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and the Bible. Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.