Chromosome challenge

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo
I gave my view and I defend my view, but as much as others do, their view is only good as mine. Which leaves us to a draw. Which is fine by me.

BTW, I don't insult those who don't dish out first. Once they do, I don't turn the other cheek.

But as far as I've read, you only defend your view by repeating it, not by citing sources or giving any actual data to support your position (or refute anyone else's).

TCOE believers have other motives and it's not just with "proving" Evolution. It's an effort by non-believers of any religion to protest that God had nothing to do with our creation. I've watched how a campaign launched in alt.atheism came to a local forum to cause mischief, all because they wanted to show the South and Christians they're wrong. They remained for months just to cause trouble. That type of Evolution "bible thumping" of these TCOE incarnates does not help the debate, either. It's become a political issue now, along the lines of Abortion & Choice.

I won't disagree on this point, but not everyone that sees evolution as reality is out to bash on religious folks. In fact, take a look at the first post I made in this thread...I made some similar points. It gets frustrating, however, when religious zealots refuse to look at evidence and claim that evolution is just plain wrong. They don't say this because they've read the science and have found points of refutation, they say it because they've been told that evolution goes directly against the bible, which as far as I can see, it doesn't.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
But as far as I've read, you only defend your view by repeating it, not by citing sources or giving any actual data to support your position (or refute anyone else's).

Defending opinions with opinions offers what, Jack? None of us are in the position to be the authority on judging our ancestory. None of us have spent our lives studying the subject, so none of us are qualified to give an opinion that has merit.

We're just here speculating on our origins, nothing more.

I won't disagree on this point, but not everyone that sees evolution as reality is out to bash on religious folks. In fact, take a look at the first post I made in this thread...I made some similar points. It gets frustrating, however, when religious zealots refuse to look at evidence and claim that evolution is just plain wrong. They don't say this because they've read the science and have found points of refutation, they say it because they've been told that evolution goes directly against the bible, which as far as I can see, it doesn't.

Religious folks have no need to see Evolution as Evolutionists do, nor do Evolutionists need to see the Creationist view. When either side comes out of their cave to preach their views as some gospel and try to force it down another's throat then it becomes an issue of more than speculations.

I don't like either view, as they're but spitting images of each other. Much like Chistianity and Satanism are just polar opposites of a religion.

Neither side will be all right and all wrong. Some knowledge we'll never know, and I'm glad too -- because man has a terrible tendency of taking evidence and repackaging it into something totally different (or as intended).

It's the insecure folks in the world who need to know our origins. It's wasted energy that could be used on more important matters -- like curing disease and finding a way for man to live together without killing the entire species.

 

[Gibsons]

It's the insecure folks in the world who need to know our origins. It's wasted energy that could be used on more important matters -- like curing disease and finding a way for man to live together without killing the entire species.

Those of us who do study diseases for a living frequently find that evolutionary theory is indispensible for getting to the answers we are seeking.

 

[Peter]

You've made the other thread a debate from a simple question. And you're not answering questions there either, instead swamping it with pointless rhetorics like this one here. And - again, and plain to see for everyone - you've been the one to switch to insults there too.

Answer. The. Questions. Mine and/or the other people's.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

It's the insecure folks in the world who need to know our origins. It's wasted energy that could be used on more important matters -- like curing disease and finding a way for man to live together without killing the entire species.

Those of us who do study diseases for a living frequently find that evolutionary theory is indispensible for getting to the answers we are seeking.

I think that's one thing Terumo doesn't get. Evolutionary Theory is a sound scientific theory which is applicable to many other fields of science. That's the point of a scientific theory, no?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Those of us who do study diseases for a living frequently find that evolutionary theory is indispensible for getting to the answers we are seeking.

And where does it lead folks?

Is there a cure for cancer? Are those paralysed able to walk? Can a blind man see?

What has "that evolutionary theory" done to broaden our understanding of the disease process? That cells adapt? That bacteria evolve?

In the end man won't be able to keep up with the changes. As fast as man can find a patch, the patch becomes unglued.

Then ask yourself, "why?"

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter
You've made the other thread a debate from a simple question.

<Hmmmmmmm........maybe Peter is growing another brain cell to rub?>

And you're not answering questions there either, instead swamping it with pointless rhetorics like this one here. And - again, and plain to see for everyone - you've been the one to switch to insults there too.

<Hmmmmmmm........maybe not>

Answer. The. Questions. Mine and/or the other people's.

Why?

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Those of us who do study diseases for a living frequently find that evolutionary theory is indispensible for getting to the answers we are seeking.

And where does it lead folks?

Is there a cure for cancer? Are those paralysed able to walk? Can a blind man see?

What has "that evolutionary theory" done to broaden our understanding of the disease process? That cells adapt? That bacteria evolve?

In the end man won't be able to keep up with the changes. As fast as man can find a patch, the patch becomes unglued.

Then ask yourself, "why?"

Now it's like you're arguing solely for the sake of arguing.

You're saying because we haven't done it yet, there's no point in trying? You're saying we might as well give up because there's obviously still more that we can learn?

Huh.

 

[Terumo]

Actually, Jack I'm arguing the points as intended, but the answers you seek Science, Religion nor philosophy can answer.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Actually, Jack I'm arguing the points as intended, but the answers you seek Science, Religion nor philosophy can answer.

So you actually believe there's no point in using evolutionary theories in an attempt to further our knowledge in other fields, simply because we haven't cured cancer yet? When someone says "evolutionary theory helps people create new medicines" and you reply "where does it lead? have you cured cancer?", it sure seems that's what you believe...

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
So you actually believe there's no point in using evolutionary theories in an attempt to further our knowledge in other fields, simply because we haven't cured cancer yet? When someone says "evolutionary theory helps people create new medicines" and you reply "where does it lead? have you cured cancer?", it sure seems that's what you believe...

Now it's evolutionary "theories". So how wide is the net cast now, Jack?

If Science knew everything and was as factual as some here claimed, we would've found a cure long ago. I mean Science is suppose to answer everything, right? Leave nothing to the imagination and we're but robots to rigid convention?

BTW, Jack, when was the last major scientific discovery -- like on par to finding our DNA?

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Jack31081
So you actually believe there's no point in using evolutionary theories in an attempt to further our knowledge in other fields, simply because we haven't cured cancer yet? When someone says "evolutionary theory helps people create new medicines" and you reply "where does it lead? have you cured cancer?", it sure seems that's what you believe...

Now it's evolutionary "theories". So how wide is the net cast now, Jack?

If Science knew everything and was as factual as some here claimed, we would've found a cure long ago. I mean Science is suppose to answer everything, right? Leave nothing to the imagination and we're but robots to rigid convention?

BTW, Jack, when was the last major scientific discovery -- like on par to finding our DNA?

Ugh...you know damn well what I mean by 'theories', or at least you should. The general process of evolution is one thing, but there are a number of theories about the finer points of speciation.

I'm not claiming science knows everything, and anyone that does has a few screws loose. Just because science hasn't found the answer yet, doesn't mean it's not out there to be found. Gravity existed long before Newton came around and saw an apple fall out of a tree. What are you trying to say anyways (with regards to evolution, that is)?? That everything we currently know is wrong simply because there's more out there to learn? Sure, our understanding of evolution can and probably will change over time. Our perception of the forces that hold the universe together have changed over time. Our understanding of biology has changed over time. We learn more, correct our mistakes, adjust our theories. But that doesn't make them wrong.

I use our knowledge of the atom as an example. The first time someone wrote down what an atom looked like, it was essentially a soup of electrons and protons, just sort of floating around. Bohr came along and created the planetary model of the atom. This was a breakthrough, because it helped scientists figure out many things about how the world worked. Granted, we now know the atom is much more complicated then that, but the planetary model is still used in schools all over the world. Why? I mean, it's wrong. But it's practical. It's useful for all kinds of calculations and scientific work. Just like Newtonian physics, while incomplete compared to quantum mechanics, is extremely practical.

Current evolutionary theory, while probably incomplete and basic, is also practical. As science advances, the theory will be refined. But the basics will always be there. That species evolve and over time create new species. The details are another matter. Our ignorance of the details is no reason to write off the entire theory.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Those of us who do study diseases for a living frequently find that evolutionary theory is indispensible for getting to the answers we are seeking.

What has "that evolutionary theory" done to broaden our understanding of the disease process? That cells adapt? That bacteria evolve?

(snip)

You ask this after you typed the following

Check the last link in my sig. Where does that link take you?

I don't just read abstracts, I buy photocopy cards and camp out at the medical school library reading and copying journal articles (especially forensic and pathology journals) and rare medical books on things like starvation. So what was your idea again?

Karyotyping is not a basis to find similiarity, but deformity (where the research and the money for that research is at). They're all racing to find a cure for genetic disorders -- that's more important than waxing philosophical about our origins.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
Current evolutionary theory, while probably incomplete and basic, is also practical. As science advances, the theory will be refined. But the basics will always be there.

Probably not. Because by then Science as we know it would've changed.

There are discoveries beyond Earth that will turn our whole outlook on it's head, and cause us to scrap what we think is "basic" and "right".

Science is making the same mistake religion made, and in the effort to make itself credible fell into the same pit of convention and terror.

It is why Science as we know it will evolve from the branch that sired it, to be free of it's chains and limitations. Perhaps when AI is able to think for itself -- for it would not have the ability to be paranoid (remember Clarke's 2001 and 2010?) and will be free of man's bias.

 

[Jack31081]

You whine about everyone else doing nothing but conjecturing in this thread, and yet your post is nothing but conjecture.

i mean hell, why study anything if it's all going to be tossed out the window some day?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
You whine about everyone else doing nothing but conjecturing in this thread, and yet your post is nothing but conjecture.

i mean hell, why study anything if it's all going to be tossed out the window some day?

This is a bone gnawing thread, Jack. No one here with the magic bullet to slay an opposing view. No one has concrete evidence. All we have are guesses and ideas we're speculating on.

We will study, we will learn, but time changes everything. It'll change Science as we know it too. It's just common sense.

Throwing up one's hands I'll see a scientist might do in frustration, but not someone with faith. Why is that, Jack?

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo
This is a bone gnawing thread, Jack. No one here with the magic bullet to slay an opposing view.

I said the exact same thing in my first post to this thread.

No one has concrete evidence. All we have are guesses and ideas we're speculating on.

But there is research and evidence that supports the 'guessees' of evolution.

Throwing up one's hands I'll see a scientist might do in frustration, but not someone with faith. Why is that, Jack?

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but ok. A scientist will throw up his hands in frustration because a scientist has to work towards truth. He has to conjecture, test, validate. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it does.

A person with faith will never get frustrated because he doesn't need to work to validate his faith. That's the essence of faith. If scientists "believed" in evolution, no one would be working to find out more about it. They'd just put down their tools and say, "that's it. that's the truth. there's no more to it."

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081

Originally posted by: Terumo
This is a bone gnawing thread, Jack. No one here with the magic bullet to slay an opposing view.

I said the exact same thing in my first post to this thread.

No one has concrete evidence. All we have are guesses and ideas we're speculating on.

But there is research and evidence that supports the 'guessees' of evolution.

Read the above, Jack. You're contradicting yourself. If no side has the evidence, then no side can have evidence to support their "guesses".

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but ok. A scientist will throw up his hands in frustration because a scientist has to work towards truth. He has to conjecture, test, validate. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes it does.

A person with faith will never get frustrated because he doesn't need to work to validate his faith. That's the essence of faith. If scientists "believed" in evolution, no one would be working to find out more about it. They'd just put down their tools and say, "that's it. that's the truth. there's no more to it."

Now reread what you wrote and check out this thread again.

A. A scientist will give up not only because of frustration, because he grew tired of trying to answer the unknown. He'll even abandon the effort.

B. Someone with faith is at peace with the knowledge that somethings will never be answered, he'll continue on as giving up isn't an option.

C. TCOE believers believe in Evolution and refuse to give up, because to them Evolution is their faith. They won't throw down their tools, they'll use them like scripture to browbeat others to accept only their view.

D. The outcome of this browbeating is self-defeating as it causes a backlash, which hurts not only Science (with restrictions on how and what it can study), but society itself.

E. Extremism is bad news for everyone.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Answer. The. Questions. Mine and/or the other people's.

Why?

Because that's the point of a debate. Questions are raised, answers given. Everything else is just hot air.

Questions are there that are in your claimed area of expertise. We all know you know nothing and have nothing to say in any area of science, so please enlighten us about the one book you claim to know.

Earth flat? The entire universe orbit the Earth? Yes or No? Come on, it's simple.

I tell you why you don't answer: Because it's the only way for you to weasel out of having to contradict yourself.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Read the above, Jack. You're contradicting yourself. If no side has the evidence, then no side can have evidence to support their "guesses".

But when I say one side can't slay the other, I mean that evolution and religion, even creation aren't mutually exclusive. You can't kill creation with evolution, because the two don't answer the same question, in my opinion.

Now reread what you wrote and check out this thread again.

A. A scientist will give up not only because of frustration, because he grew tired of trying to answer the unknown. He'll even abandon the effort.

B. Someone with faith is at peace with the knowledge that somethings will never be answered, he'll continue on as giving up isn't an option.

C. TCOE believers believe in Evolution and refuse to give up, because to them Evolution is their faith. They won't throw down their tools, they'll use them like scripture to browbeat others to accept only their view.

D. The outcome of this browbeating is self-defeating as it causes a backlash, which hurts not only Science (with restrictions on how and what it can study), but society itself.

E. Extremism is bad news for everyone.

If someone with faith is at peace, and TCOE believers have faith in evolution, why do they refuse to give up? Why aren't they at peace with their belief? It's because they know they don't have the whole answer yet, and they're trying to figure it out. They're on the path, but they've yet to reach the finish line.

 

[Howard]

Why hasn't somebody locked this piece of sh1t already? This is a disgrace to HT.

I will say, though, that it seems to me that Terumo has a certain phobia of answering questions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: dgevert
http://webpages.charter.net/rufusatticus/YunisFig2.GIF

What's interesting here is that, if one takes into account the fact that the great majority of DNA is "junk DNA" and serves no purpose from a design standpoint, it's interesting to see such incredible similiarities between our DNA and that of our distant cousin (according to evolution), the chimpanzee. From a design standpoint, there's no logical reason an omniscient, omnipotent designer would go to such lengths to ensure that we see such similiarity in genetic code that doesn't do anything.

I would disagree with you. "Junk" DNA is a phrase meaning that we don't know what it does, not that it does not do anything. Recently, this "junk" has been found to do some interesting things.

What you have done is construct an argument that says the argument supports itself.

Why could God not have caused the conditions or influenced DNA to create different species? Why throw out the whole tool box?

BTW, I don't believe the in the literal 7 day creation, but I cannot say that some outside influence did not guide evolution.

I am agnostic on this issue. I cannot know,I can only believe one way or another.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Howard
Why hasn't somebody locked this piece of sh1t already? This is a disgrace to HT.

I will say, though, that it seems to me that Terumo has a certain phobia of answering questions.

It comes down to: if you ask the question and don't like the answer, what do you have?

No one has the answers to our origins so there are none to offer but opinions. Theories are but learnt opinions, but are not facts. Few things in reality are factual (due to variables), and even if they are, new evidence comes around and facts can become fiction.

BTW, philosophy is open ended. It allows questions to go unanswered.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Howard
Why hasn't somebody locked this piece of sh1t already? This is a disgrace to HT.

I will say, though, that it seems to me that Terumo has a certain phobia of answering questions.

It comes down to: if you ask the question and don't like the answer, what do you have?

No one has the answers to our origins so there are none to offer but opinions. Theories are but learnt opinions, but are not facts. Few things in reality are factual (due to variables), and even if they are, new evidence comes around and facts can become fiction.

BTW, philosophy is open ended. It allows questions to go unanswered.

But with respect to the 'answers' put forth by the scientific community, one can at least present evidence to support or refute said answers (read: theories). The more evidence to support a theory, the more established it becomes.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Howard
Why hasn't somebody locked this piece of sh1t already? This is a disgrace to HT.

I will say, though, that it seems to me that Terumo has a certain phobia of answering questions.

It comes down to: if you ask the question and don't like the answer, what do you have?

No one has the answers to our origins so there are none to offer but opinions. Theories are but learnt opinions, but are not facts. Few things in reality are factual (due to variables), and even if they are, new evidence comes around and facts can become fiction.

BTW, philosophy is open ended. It allows questions to go unanswered.

You are refusing to answer the questions because you think the questioners won't like the answers?

I'll agree that we don't have any absolute answers as to our origin; however, nobody is asking you where we came from. Rather, the questions are quite simple.

If you've forgotten about them, here are Peter's two questions.

Is the Earth flat? Yes or no? If No, then how come the unquestionable Bible has it flat, with pictures?

Also, was Galileo right? Yes or No? If you say No here, then explain why the (current) Pope admitted he was right after all?

These questions have nothing to do with where humans came from. I'll be interested to see how you evade them yet again.