Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

No. Talking junk about the validity of controlled conditions is not merely "disagreeing with me". That's just intellectually dishonest anti-science rethoric.

I presented expert opinions that agree with me. It is not anti-science as both positions were coming from scientists and both hold that GA are not adequate simulations of evolution nor blind. Read them again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it's intellectual honesty.

To not use words like "maybe" and "think" and "could have" etc, would imply a degree of certainty that does not belong in scientific discourse.

"There is" becomes "there might be".
"It is" becomes "it might be".
"It surely is" becomes "it seems likely".

Again: intellectual honesty.

Not "mere guesses based on nothing".

And no evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

THIS ! !
this right here should be the focus of molecular biology.
this technology, if implemented correctly can solve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM resource wise the human race faces.
it could definitely end any question about "runninig out of energy" (the energy crisis).
it could end pollution.
it could end the question of enough food, as a matter of fact it could reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its not my burden and you all need to understand that you have a burden for your positions.

Right, I forgot...

You are the exception to the rule.
Everyone has a burden of proof, except you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you think biologists are imagining design in living organisms?

First and foremost, biologist have explanations and justifications for the things they state. Unlike you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you know the difference between assertion?

The difference "between assertion"?

Errr.... wut?

Saying that we have a pretty good idea of how something evolved is hand waving and evolution of the gaps mentality. You all claim that you only will believe something if there is evidence to confirm it but you have nothing and still believe stories.

I have a pretty good idea of how a computer works.
Therefor, I know nothing about computers.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what really gets me is how complex this molecule is.

Yes, it seems you are really impressed by things that are complex.

but yet people get upset when you say that DNA provides the information to build it.

Only because we know what is being implied when such a thing is said on forums such as this one. The problem lies in what you people understand by the word "information".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can't speak for him but it is apparent to me that he is not questioning his professional aptitude but he is letting his biases control his conclusions.

Well, to me it is apparant that he thinks what I said he thinks.
Because, well... he said it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is simply a lie. I have not quote mined. The book as I have stated is filled with may haves, could be's, perhaps we can believe, if you let your imagination lead you's, it might have happened this ways and on and on and on but not one bit of actual scientific evidence. If you would like to present any scientific evidence that I might have missed in the book feel free to present it. No one has done it because it is not there.

The book is filled with intellectual honesty?

THE NERVE!

 

[DogmaHunter]

THIS ! !
this right here should be the focus of molecular biology.
this technology, if implemented correctly can solve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM resource wise the human race faces.
it could definitely end any question about "runninig out of energy" (the energy crisis).
it could end pollution.
it could end the question of enough food, as a matter of fact it could reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero.

Machines don't reproduce with modification while competing for limited resources.

Drawing inspiration from how nature accomplishes certain things to build certain devices/machines/tools really is nothing new.

*ahum* GA's *ahum*

 

[DogmaHunter]

I presented expert opinions that agree with me.

You did not.

Not a single biologist or GA specialist would agree with you that the designs produced by a GA are examples of "intelligent design" because "intelligence was used to build the GA".

That is the anti-science rethoric that objects to controlled conditions.
The employed logic is identical to saying that freezers are evidence of intelligent freezing.

It is not anti-science as both positions were coming from scientists and both hold that GA are not adequate simulations of evolution nor blind. Read them again.

GA's are blind in every sense of the word.
GA's are blind watchmakers.

For the same reason that the process of evolution is a blind watchmaker.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And no evidence.

Are you aware that you just threw every scientific journal and every scientific paper out the window?

Good job.

Say again that you don't spew anti-science rethoric........

 

[lasthero]

THIS ! !
this right here should be the focus of molecular biology.
this technology, if implemented correctly can solve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM resource wise the human race faces.
it could definitely end any question about "runninig out of energy" (the energy crisis).
it could end pollution.
it could end the question of enough food, as a matter of fact it could reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero.

I must say, I'm curious how you think the above could do all of this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, I forgot...

You are the exception to the rule.
Everyone has a burden of proof, except you.

No, if I make a claim I have that burden of proof. Richard Dawkins and others have made a claim and it is up to him and others to provide the burden of proof. You do understand that right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

First and foremost, biologist have explanations and justifications for the things they state. Unlike you.

They can have as many explanation and justifications as they wish but they need to provide evidence for those explanations and justifications.

 

[whois]

Well, to me it is apparant that he thinks what I said he thinks.
Because, well... he said it.

said what?
about dawkins portraying evolution as a simple minded process?
i'll say it again.
his entire argument is a strawman.
evolution is so simple minded that they are still trying to figure it all out 200 years after "the origin".

 

[Oncedeceived]

The difference "between assertion"?

Errr.... wut?

Sorry. Between evidence and assertion.

I have a pretty good idea of how a computer works.
Therefor, I know nothing about computers.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

Computer vs. all living organisms....where is the problem here?

However, you know that there are certain things a computer needs to work, right? You know the way computers are constructed and how the programs need to be set up to work; and most people know but few could construct a working computer or the programs used with them. Claiming knowledge of something doesn't imply a full knowledge nor does it provide a blanket explanation to everything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it seems you are really impressed by things that are complex.



Only because we know what is being implied when such a thing is said on forums such as this one. The problem lies in what you people understand by the word "information".

Do you make up your own definitions now?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, to me it is apparant that he thinks what I said he thinks.
Because, well... he said it.

He said that all living organisms appear deliberately designed...he believes that because well he said it.

 

[whois]

Machines don't reproduce with modification while competing for limited resources.

then by definition, you MUST concede that life is more than the mechanical chemical bonds that comprise it.