Creationists and research

[Pete Harcoff]

Mendal's laws of inheritance are scientific because they are both predictable and have an identifiable null hypothesis. Natural selection has neither.

*points to post #50*

 

[phaedrus]

Wow which one of these guys is worse.

The moron who can't spell or the fool who is so entrenched in Creationist lies.

The idiot who cannot discern the difference between a premise and a proof.

 

[Bushido216]

Phaedrus, isn't the notion that both are philosophies a presupposition? Without any ability to discern what is and is not truth you are merely making assumptions based on your point of view.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

The idiot who cannot discern the difference between a premise and a proof.

At least I can spell transcendental!

You know, when you purchase the big words there is a clause in the sales agreement that says you forfeit the right to use them if you repeatedly spell them incorrectly.

 

[phaedrus]

This isn't the first time I've seen people trying to apply attributes such as 'religion' or 'philosophy' to the theory of evolution. This is an attempt to place both religeous/philosophical belief systems in the same arena with the scientific method.

Finally you make a real statement. I'm saying that science is unchanged by either evolutionary thought or creationism. Natural selection is a philosophy pure and simple.

This tactic is used as kind of an equalizer, giving religeous/pholosophical belief systems the same foothold as the scientific method in the discussions. This is like trying to mix water with oil.

Transendental philosophy is a mix of many systems of thought, its a synthesis. It will mix or its just a poor philosophy.

In this particular thread, I see the invocation of the transcendental philosophy. That philosophy has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is a philosophy dealing with what is percieved as 'truth', the pure mind, what is percieved as goodness, and that which transcends natural observations. It applies to doctrines of metaphysical idealism.

Then natural selection has nothing to do with science since it is transendental philosophy.

 

[phaedrus]

Phaedrus, isn't the notion that both are philosophies a presupposition? Without any ability to discern what is and is not truth you are merely making assumptions based on your point of view.

Of course it is, and if the premise is valid then the conclusion follows.

 

[phaedrus]

At least I can spell transcendental!

You know, when you purchase the big words there is a clause in the sales agreement that says you forfeit the right to use them if you repeatedly spell them incorrectly.

I'm not trying to sell anything and typos should not distract from substance.

 

[phaedrus]

But with respect to specific traits in a population, natural selection can be demonstrated. For example:

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

When microbes evolve in a continuous, nutrient-limited environment, natural selection can be predicted to favor genetic changes that give cells greater access to limiting substrate. We analyzed a population of baker’s yeast that underwent 450 generations of glucose-limited growth. Relative to the strain used as the inoculum, the predominant cell type at the end of this experiment sustains growth at significantly lower steady-state glucose concentrations and demonstrates markedly enhanced cell yield per mole glucose, significantly enhanced high-affinity glucose transport, and greater relative fitness in pairwise competition. (full paper)

So again, how is this not science?

You are demonstrating the laws of inheritance not natural selection here.

 

[Larry]

Natural selection is a philosophy pure and simple.

Is that because you say so? Hey, binary mathematics is a religion, pure and simple. Why? Because I've stated it.

Then natural selection has nothing to do with science since it is transendental philosophy.

Natural selection has nothing to do with science, is as frying pans have nothing to do with cooking.

 

[phaedrus]

Is that because you say so? Hey, binary mathematics is a religion, pure and simple. Why? Because I've stated it.

No, I said that religion is an inversion of the logic.

Natural selection has nothing to do with science, is as frying pans have nothing to do with cooking.

Its also like saying that creationism has nothing to do with science.

 

[Deamiter]

Um... phaedrus... how is natural selection different than inheritance then? Apparently, the yeast mutated somewhere in there, and the future generations came out with modified traits (on average). So yes, they inherited the mutations, but if natural selection didn't come in and weed out the yeast that was lesser able to survive, then the ratio of mutated to origional would have been very small (unchanged ratio since the first mutation).

The fact that it was measurably changed over the entire culture is an example of natural selection. I don't see natural selection as harmful to a YEC anti-evolutionist view. It's just something that has been demonstrated - and yes it requires inheritance of genes to work.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You are demonstrating the laws of inheritance not natural selection here.

I see an assertion, but I don't see anything to back up that assertion.

 

[phaedrus]

Um... phaedrus... how is natural selection different than inheritance then? Apparently, the yeast mutated somewhere in there, and the future generations came out with modified traits (on average). So yes, they inherited the mutations, but if natural selection didn't come in and weed out the yeast that was lesser able to survive, then the ratio of mutated to origional would have been very small (unchanged ratio since the first mutation).

The fact that it was measurably changed over the entire culture is an example of natural selection. I don't see natural selection as harmful to a YEC anti-evolutionist view. It's just something that has been demonstrated - and yes it requires inheritance of genes to work.

The laws of inheritance are predictable and have a null hypothesis, natural selection does not. I hate to be redundant but thats a fact and it remains unchallenged.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The laws of inheritance are predictable and have a null hypothesis, natural selection does not. I hate to be redundant but thats a fact and it remains unchallenged.

Except I challenged it. You have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary besides making bold assertions.

 

[phaedrus]

I see an assertion, but I don't see anything to back up that assertion.

Ditto!

Its been real everyone but I have to leave the close encounter of the one liners. If you want a serious discussion of how natural selection I suggest you propose one on the formal debate thread. If I am convinced you are seriously trying to defend natural selection as science I'll be delighted to debate you there. Untill then, dont get too dizzy running circles around your premise.

 

[Larry]

.....and on his haughty and high horse, he rides off into the sunset....

 

[Bushido216]

Of course it is, and if the premise is valid then the conclusion follows.

And they accuse me of playing word games.

 

[Genetica]

I have two populations of fruit flies in jars. Population A has a mutation that makes it resistant to a certain inseticide, whereas population B has not. I breed populations A and B for a couple of generations. I have some flies with the mutated "A" gene and sopme with the "B" gene.
Prediction: If I start to put the inceticide on my flies, eventually all of the flies will have the gene present in population A.
Null hypothesis: If the gene does not confer resistance to the inseticide, it will not become fixed in the hybrid fly population.

So... a prediction, a null hypothesis... looks like science to me.

 

[toff]

Intellectual dishonesty?..Often you like all others here rely on information that YOU HAVE NOT GATHERED..rather you have learned this from some other sources..cut the BS toff..if you ask a question expect an answer..Actually you weren't asking a question but making a statement: if you can't get info from non-creationists literature, what is left? Pro slant evolutionary resources..You've limited all points of view by saying Creationists have no credibility as scientists (that sounds like a stmt doesn't it)..besides before I and most other creationists became one, all one learned growing up was the evolutionary slant on origins..so the answer is yes..i do get info on the evolution from evolutionists...(you watch enough Discovery and Nature and read Nature and Scientific American, one gets the evolutionary spin all the time...what else are you going to accuse me of toff?

Yes, intellectual dishonesty. It is intellectually dishonest to denigrate and dismiss a scientific theory without reading the science behind it. You haven't, and don't want to.

Oops, sorry...I never said that creationists have no credibility as scientists (so stop lying). Many creationists are fine scientists. They have no credibility as far as evolutionary theory goes.

Ah, so you have read about evolutionary theory? Great. Could you please name some books on the subject (not by creationists) that you have read? Until you can/do, I'll continue to believe you haven't (as you show by your constant ignorance of the subject).

 

[toff]

Sure its easy, if you do not qualify your assertion by saying that both evolution and creationism are philosophy. You are arguing from a premise (aka presuposition).

Sorry, but your "qualification" is merely another unsupported assertion.