Intelligence Inquiry

[pitabread]

And just in case anyone is wondering why evolution is taught, I think this quote says it all:

Evolution, in addition to being solid science, provides us with a practical and powerful tool-kit. Applied techniques based on evolution play central roles in the biotechnology industry, and in recent advances in genomics and drug discovery. Bioinformatics, the application of computers to biology and one of the hottest career opportunities in science, is full of evolution-based computer code. Tens of thousands of researchers in the multibillion-dollar field of biomedical research and development use evolution-based discoveries and concepts as a routine part of their important work.​

...​

What does evolution have to do with biotechnology? As the president of a biotech firm in St Louis, I can tell you that evolutionary biology is an integral part of what we and other companies do. I hire scientists who are well-trained in molecular evolutionary biology; who know how to recognize the business end of enzymes simply by looking at DNA sequences; who know which changes in a protein are important; who can design research tools based on the way a species manipulates the genetic code. Today, these skills are as important to discoveries in the laboratory as knowing how to use a microscope, and it takes an understanding of evolution to master them.
​

James P. McCarter Ph.D., M.D - Founder, CSO and President of Divergence Inc. - Evolution is a Winner — for Breakthroughs and Prizes

(It's also worth noting that Divergence Inc. was later acquired by Monsanto in 2011, who in turn was later acquired by Bayer to the tune of $56 billion in 2018.)

 

[Sparagmos]

How many experts are there on evolution? What do you consider to be an expert? Where do you get your numbers?

scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Best established theory? I think gravity would be much more established or any number of things.

You can not observe the beginning of the universe.

Are we talking about origin of the universe or evolution?

 

[pitabread]

EDIT: You aren't paying attention, you have no reason to ask us that until you can show us your validity, none whatsoever.

Seriously? More petty cop out evasions? You just brought my question on with what was something the thread wasn't about either, and you accuse me? Answer it if you can, or don't as I suspect you cannot.

If you want to know about the validity of the science of evolution and why it is taught in schools, I'll refer to the prior post I just made.

In a nutshell, the theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology and has real-world applications. Therefore, it is taught as such since there are real-world economic reasons to do so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you want to know about the validity of the science of evolution and why it is taught in schools, I'll refer to the prior post I just made.

In a nutshell, the theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology and has real-world applications. Therefore, it is taught as such since there are real-world economic reasons to do so.

I'll need the details I've been asking about but have never received. We've already discussed how you can do that so no need to repeat myself. I'll keep an eye open, and will comment when you have come through. Until then, it's all talk, the same talk that always falls apart when explored in depth. Maybe someone else would be so kind as to help you?

Thanks just the same.

 

[pitabread]

Until then, it's all talk, the same talk that always falls apart when explored in depth.

So you say. But on the other hand, I just quoted the founder of a successful biotech firm that stated evolution underlines the work they do.

In fact, I can even point to another biotech firm that even advertises the principles of biological evolution in the name of the company and even has filed patents directly based on practical applications thereof: Evolutionary Genomics

So on the one hand we have your claims that evolution "falls apart" when people look at it. On the other hand, I can point to real world scientists and companies that utilize it for practical application.

Unless you can demonstrate that you know more about biology than the scientist founders of successful biotech firms and/or demonstrate a similar track record, I'm afraid I'm going to have to defer to them on the subject.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you say. But on the other hand, I just quoted the founder of a successful biotech firm that stated evolution underlines the work they do.

In fact, I can even point to another biotech firm that even advertises the principles of biological evolution in the name of the company and even has filed patents directly based on practical applications thereof: Evolutionary Genomics

So on the one hand we have your claims that evolution "falls apart" when people look at it. On the other hand, I can point to real world scientists and companies that utilize it for practical application.

Unless you can demonstrate that you know more about biology than the scientist founders of successful biotech firms and/or demonstrate a similar track record, I'm afraid I'm going to have to defer to them on the subject.

I said we've already discussed all that, and you could simply teach me as we go along. You are well aware of our past conversations on that, yet you are actually still trying to use any lack of knowledge on my behalf as reason NOT to teach me. lol That makes no sense at all, but just the type thing I expect.

 

[pitabread]

You are well aware of our past conversations on that, yet you are actually still trying to use any lack of knowledge on my behalf as reason NOT to teach me.

When last we discussed this, I told you that if you made an honest effort to learn the subject of biology and evolution, I would be happy to discuss it along the way. And I pointed you to a number of courses on the subject that you could take at your own pace (I made a thread listing them here: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution).

I also told you that I have no interest in trying to "debate" it with the intent of cramming it down your throat.

If you demonstrate that you legitimately want to learn and show some self-directed motivation to do so, then we can discuss whatever questions you may have on the subject. The best place to start is still going to be pre-existing course material that is freely available for anyone who wants it.

 

[inquiring mind]

I just quoted the founder of a successful biotech firm that stated evolution underlines the work they do.

This is from an article in Evolution Science & News Today by Stephen C. Meyer, which shows ID underlies work too.

"In The Design Inference, mathematician William Dembski explicates the logic of design detection. His work reinforces the conclusion that the specified information present in DNA points to a designing mind.

Dembski shows that rational agents often detect the prior activity of other designing minds by the character of the effects they leave behind. Archaeologists assume that rational agents produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. Insurance fraud investigators detect certain “cheating patterns” that suggest intentional manipulation of circumstances rather than a natural disaster. Cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those carrying encoded messages, the latter indicating an intelligent source. Recognizing the activity of intelligent agents constitutes a common and fully rational mode of inference.”

 

[inquiring mind]

That's if you had an opposing theory to present. Intelligent Design isn't an opposing theory. It's not even an opposing hypothesis. It's just... religious nonsense disguised as science by people who can't do science.

I understand this is the normal response for evolutionists, especially those who will not entertain or accept any other explanation for our existence, other than by natural means. Where is the spirit of scientific inquiry in that position; and, what is wrong with scientists comparing evidence and opposing beliefs up to a point? That doesn’t hurt science; it may hurt TOE... and that appears to be the real problem.

 

[Yttrium]

I understand this is the normal response for evolutionists, especially those who will not entertain or accept any other explanation for our existence, other than by natural means.

Science is a tool. It's used to find natural explanations for what we see in nature. That's what we use it for. It may be that some things happened due to supernatural forces. In that case, science won't be able to handle those things. That doesn't prevent us from trying to find out if there are natural explanations.

Where is the spirit of scientific inquiry in that position; and, what is wrong with scientists comparing evidence and opposing beliefs up to a point? That doesn’t hurt science; it may hurt TOE... and that appears to be the real problem.

The evidence is the evidence. The theory is made to fit the evidence. A supernatural explanation is outside the realm of science. The only thing ID has going for it is irreducible complexity, which is just saying "I dunno how evolution could have pulled this off". There's nothing really there to compare. At best, ID proponents could propose irreducibly complex structures, and biologists could try and find ways to explain them through evolutionary processes.

 

[inquiring mind]

Science is a tool. It's used to find natural explanations for what we see in nature. That's what we use it for. It may be that some things happened due to supernatural forces. In that case, science won't be able to handle those things. That doesn't prevent us from trying to find out if there are natural explanations.

I agree, and ID should have criteria and parameters, and not cross-over into theology either.

The evidence is the evidence. The theory is made to fit the evidence. A supernatural explanation is outside the realm of science. The only thing ID has going for it is irreducible complexity, which is just saying "I dunno how evolution could have pulled this off". There's nothing really there to compare. At best, ID proponents could propose irreducibly complex structures, and biologists could try and find ways to explain them through evolutionary processes.

I agree, but ID has not had the opportunity to develop in an academic setting. It gets shot down in the courts. Look, my point is there’s a real problem in our schools with the theory of evolution right now, and it’s getting worse. You can deny it if you want, but it’s got more holes in it than downtown Baghdad had a few years back. Intelligent Design is not the argument from ignorance that many make it out to be. There are scientists and educators that raise many legitimate questions concerning ID, and the weaknesses in evolution theory. And, more and more students are seeking out this information. The education system will have to address it eventually, on a much bigger scale than has been attempted.

 

[USincognito]

The truth is God made Adam and Eve just like we are today.

This is a theological statement, not a scientific one.

Skeletons and fossils etc don't prove this to be wrong.

Science doesn't "prove" anything and there is no such thing as scientific proof. The fossils are, however, evidence that humans evolved from earlier species of Hominids. As this graphic correctly states, there is more fossil evidence for human evolution than there is fossil evidence that T-Rex existed.

The skeletons that evolutionists use to say we evolved from are just skeletons of animals that were similar to our skeletons but they were not the same as us.

This makes zero sense. Our fellow Hominids are not members of species Homo sapiens so of course they are going to be different, but they're still related. Your grandparents and your cousins are not you, but you're all related.

 

[USincognito]

Intimidation, silencing, no one wants to sacrifice their job promoting an alternative to evolution... I'll stick with that.

This Slaughter of the Dissidents gaslighting isn't going to work on us. Anyone who substantively produced evidence falsifying evolution using actual science would world famous.

That hasn't happened yet.

 

[Occams Barber]

You can not observe the beginning of the universe.

Read my lips:

• Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the Universe
  
• Even ID, wrong as it is, has nothing to do with the beginning of the Universe

Both ideas are about biology.

If you're going to argue about something it's always a good idea to know what you're arguing about.
OB

 

[Kenny'sID]

When last we discussed this, I told you that if you made an honest effort to learn the subject of biology and evolution, I would be happy to discuss it along the way. And I pointed you to a number of courses on the subject that you could take at your own pace (I made a thread listing them here: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution).

I also told you that I have no interest in trying to "debate" it with the intent of cramming it down your throat.

If you demonstrate that you legitimately want to learn and show some self-directed motivation to do so, then we can discuss whatever questions you may have on the subject. The best place to start is still going to be pre-existing course material that is freely available for anyone who wants it.

More excuses, and clear excuses at that..there is nothing stopping you from doing as i ask.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Read my lips:

• Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the Universe
  
• Even ID, wrong as it is, has nothing to do with the beginning of the Universe

Both ideas are about biology.

If you're going to argue about something it's always a good idea to know what you're arguing about.
OB

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design
the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

 

[USincognito]

This is from an article in Evolution Science & News Today by Stephen C. Meyer, which shows ID underlies work too.

"In The Design Inference, mathematician William Dembski...

You know both of those guys are Discovery Institute activists, right? And that Evolution Science and News Today is a ID propaganda organ?

 

[pitabread]

More excuses, and clear excuses at that..there is nothing stopping you from doing as i ask.

I told you I'm not interested in trying to force feed you information. There has to be self motivation to learn on your part. If you don't want to meet people half way, then that is that.

 

[pitabread]

This is from an article in Evolution Science & News Today by Stephen C. Meyer, which shows ID underlies work too.

We have to be careful not to equivocate here.

The "ID" Meyer refers to as being in use has nothing to do with Intelligent Design in biological organisms. Whereas the quote I referenced is specific to biology.

"In The Design Inference, mathematician William Dembski explicates the logic of design detection. His work reinforces the conclusion that the specified information present in DNA points to a designing mind.

Dembski shows that rational agents often detect the prior activity of other designing minds by the character of the effects they leave behind. Archaeologists assume that rational agents produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. Insurance fraud investigators detect certain “cheating patterns” that suggest intentional manipulation of circumstances rather than a natural disaster. Cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those carrying encoded messages, the latter indicating an intelligent source. Recognizing the activity of intelligent agents constitutes a common and fully rational mode of inference.”

There is a bit of bait-and-switch in the above list, as nothing Meyer lists has to do with anything to with anything Dembski has proposed. These are not examples of Intelligent Design as related to biology as put forth by Intelligent Design proponents (e.g. Dembski, Meyer, et al).

And for the record, Dembski's work was at best a failed attempt to assign ID to biology. Specified complexity as proposed by Dembski has neither been validated biologically nor is in use by anyone.

(As a side note, I also noticed that Meyer throws around the term "specified information" a lot. But whereas Dembski defined complex specified information (CSI) and specified complexity as a mathematical argument based on probability, Meyer uses the term "specified information" in a rhetorical sense in his writing. It muddies the water when reading anything by Meyer.)

 

[Kenny'sID]

I told you I'm not interested in trying to force feed you information. There has to be self motivation to learn on your part. If you don't want to meet people half way, then that is that.