Kome:

And the idea that evolution led to eugenics is offensively incorrect, and again would require him to be familiar with history and theory to correct him.



Many Nobel's for medicine and physiology have gone to geneticists, molecular biologists, chemists, physiologists, physicians, and biologists.

Truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all. ~ Jerry Coyne

In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. ~ Marc Kirschner

Bevets: Kome:

And the idea that evolution led to eugenics is offensively incorrect, and again would require him to be familiar with history and theory to correct him.

[bevets.com image 640x519]

Many Nobel's for medicine and physiology have gone to geneticists, molecular biologists, chemists, physiologists, physicians, and biologists.

Truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all. ~ Jerry Coyne

In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. ~ Marc Kirschner

BEVETS SOLVE

Bevets: While you may be fond of quotes, you still have yet to address my question on ID's founder and his discussion of its formation.

Still waiting...

Reverend Monkeypants: Seriously?

[www.wnd.com image 600x305]
/hot, ftfa


These people are out of their God Damned minds.

Saying a wizard did it, would be better then these mental gymnastics.

Lord Dimwit: I drunk what: Dimensio: At least one creationist claime

tick tock dimensio, tick tock

friday13: it may as well be

what are the physical properties of the matrix world?

friday13: as would seeing people do some of that crazy shiat

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x320]

i suppose He can dodge bullets as well, the next time you see Him try it

So you accept the claims of the people who saw Lord Ganesha manifest and drink milk as proof that Hindu deities exist, right?

Or the claims of the people who saw the Golden Tablets and Joseph Smith translate them miraculously as proof that Mormonism is true, right?

Or the claims of the people who saw Mohamed transported miraculously from Medina to Jerusalem as proof that Islam is true, right?

Just sayin'.

He would have to, or be some kind of hypocrite.

I drunk what: i do occasionally steal some of the science, data, observations, etc.. to help formulate my stuff

Such as?

I drunk what: what is set theory? should i be aware of it in order to develop my Nature theory?

Probably, if you're going to use technical jargon like "sets". Otherwise, you will be continuously misinterpreted.

I drunk what: since it is the most flexible, accurate, easy to comprehend, sufficiently complex, definition that enables the greatest range of beliefs or education level-background to communicate effectively and accurately within the context of any philosophical discussion, concerning God, Science, Religion, Life, etc...

You have yet to demonstrate that it does anything of the sort.

I drunk what: sorry lad, everything in Reality does not have the convenience of apples to apples

Then don't compare apples to apples. Don't make any comparisons, period.

Just talk about apples.

Only hustlers, charlatans and con men speak in analogies and loaded metaphors. Your theory will be universally and academically rejected if you do so.

I drunk what: is the matrix

Why don't you just use Plato's Cave if you're going down that path?

I drunk what: Raharu: He would have to, or be some kind of hypocrite.
[images.cheezburger.com image 492x462]

That's not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is an either-or proposition, to lead the other party into thinking only two choices exist (usually yes and no). That's not what Raharu's doing here. He's pointing out that if you want to make a claim of an all-inclusive "bridge" theory of everything nature, life, theology and mind, you can't pick and choose the theology part and still be considered all-inclusive. Your system must assert that all theology is correct.

If all theology is not correct, you must demonstrate which parts are correct and which parts are not in a sound and justifiable manner, backed with unignorable evidence. Keep in mind that in all of human history, no one has yet been able to do this.

poonesfarm: If there ever was a truer example of the truth of the internet axiom "don't feed the troll" than the devolution of the posts RE:IDW's in(s)ane ramblings...Just stop it folks, you know better than to grapple with a willfully ignorant, eel-like sophist like this.

He gets petulant when we don't indulge such gems as he provides as: "if a hunter goes out his front door, goes 50 miles south, then goes 50 miles west, shoots a bear, goes 50 miles north and ends up in front of his house, what color was the bear?" (Spread over 300 posts, requesting us to grant him each step along the way, and becoming increasingly pissy as no one plays along.) I'm pretty sure this all goes so much better in his head; it truly seems set up, pun I'm sure intended, like the Socratic dialogues where they wonderfully have the philosophic equivalent of the Washington Generals to provide just the right phrase or conclusion to allow him a mighty slam dunk.
Except we already know the punchline. This sort of shiat goes down in your Sunday school classroom, where you can draw on the board and force a rapt group of people to submit to your sophistry, but not so well on a message board. Unfortunately for IDW, even for the limited people that truly "bite," he then spends the next 100 posts flaming the folks that wouldn't play along. He might be more successful at crafting his message if he put everyone on the ignore list that wouldn't play.

I drunk what: the theory of gravity, thermodynamics, etc...

How have you applied those things to your theory? Especially the Mind/Spiritual/Metaphysical sets?

I drunk what: ah yes, that' the stuff i'm using, is this not common knowledge that even young children can understand? are you concerned that some people won't be able to follow along because i'm using sets and do not have enough IQ to understand things like the intersections of sets?

No, I'm fearing that you may not possess the requisite knowledge and education to fully elucidate your theory properly and that this will lead to a great number of complications when its analyzed by people who are far more versed in the subject matter than you. When you define a pet term like "sets" using logical operators completely unaware that there already exists a branch of mathematics called Set Theory, that's cause for alarm. It means you're either ignorant or arrogant, and neither is a favorable position to be in to advocate your theory.

I drunk what: ok, are you capable of understanding what a non-physical "thing" is?

Are you? ...Certainly not if you have to use analogies. I hope you've read enough Kant to understand what you're talking about.

I drunk what: i just skimmed it,

Yeah, this is an issue of concern. Why do you think anyone should be interested in this fantastical theory of yours when you don't seem to be very educated in the field?

I drunk what: is the matrix simulation world a physical place?

Yes and no. Depends what you mean when you say "physical place". The question is far more complicated than you seem to understand:

Yes, in that it is a massive computer algorithm delivered by software into electro-chemical brain-barrier synapse output ports to control, modify and tease human behavior and emotional states. If you're asking whether the digital simulation itself that is projected into the minds of the people actually exists in its actual physical state as portrayed, the answer is no. If the answer were yes, that means anything humans think about (including dreams, fantasies, thoughts, etc.) would be physically real, and we know this to be not true (believe me, I've tried: No matter how hard I think about Jessica Alba, she just won't pop into existence beside me). But the underlying digital mechanism itself is real and based on physical laws and constructs in reality. We know this because when you remove them, the simulation will not work. It needs that physical connection.

This is why the Cave is a better analogy, because unlike the Matrix it isn't muddled by stark techno-jargon: The shadows are not reality. But they are manifestations of reality. If the people leave the cave, the shadows are not there anymore, so the existence of the shadows depends entirely on real-world constructs. Similarly, the matrix simulation is not real, but the computer program that serves it is. The simulation cannot exist in a physical reality divorced from physical constructs.

You're asking about non-physical states that are not attached to anything in reality. This is a problem because for one thing, you do not appear to have a firm enough grasp of what physical reality even means. Secondly, the more we learn about the physical world the more we realize that even the most abstract of concepts has some grounding in physical processes, so that nothing is truly metaphysical. Well, except logic. But logic is mostly a bunch of nonsense -- you can use it for anything. Look, here's Godel's Proof of God.



If this is what your theory ultimately wants to confirm, some dead guy just did the work for you.

Have a nice day.

/note: Godel didn't actually prove God here, he just wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to use Logic to prove anything. But then again, proving God has never been as interesting as proving the properties of God.

I drunk what: Fano: and becoming increasingly pissy as no one plays along.

if you were on an island with your mother and she told you about Santa Claus, would you believe her?

/isn't it obvious?
//what do you suppose happens 300 steps later...?
///btw i'm ever so slightly curious ... what does the blue pill taste like?

Fano: he then spends the next 100 posts flaming the folks that wouldn't play along

stupidity disappoints IDW, severely

/the sad thing is that they don't know they are already playing
//that part is not a choice

For a year at least I've been on tenterhooks waiting for the finale to the Santa/Island experiment. It is colossally stupid, and detrimental to your ethos, but hey, I seemed to strike a chord by pointing out that no one plays the game the way you want, and you become petulant when they don't.