Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Christian biologist fired for beliefs

Christian biologist fired for beliefs (Page 3)
Thread Tools
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Evolution as the mechanism for the origin of the species is NOT FACT but rather simply one of many theories.
Many theories? I know only one competing theory to evolution, Mendel's model of heredity. Which was of course superseded by the theory of evolution when it was found to be more accurate and supported by evidence.

I'm interested in hearing about these competing theories though.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Cipher13  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I wouldn't go that far. You shouldn't expect to keep your job if you refuse to do it, but I wouldn't want them asking "do you believe in creationism" during the interview. Just keep it to yourself and you'll be fine. Good fences make good neighbors.
I disagree. In this case, had he sucked it up and performed his work, I'd still have been extremely worried about biased research and results due to the cognitive dissonance involved. Even if he fully intended to work to the best of his ability, I don't think he'd have been capable of working to the same quality level as other employees, and I do have to wonder why a creationist would ever consider educating himself in biology unless he was trying to throw of his shackles of ignorance (which he clearly was not).
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Oh c'mon. You knew what everyone meant, you just wanted to be a pain in the butt.
Thinly veiled excuse to make up for ignorance and failure to accept defeat™

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Thinly veiled excuse to make up for ignorance and failure to accept defeat™
LOL! I shouldn't bite on these kinds of things!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
t sounds to me like he was willing to help with the research, but only as long as that didn't require him to implicitly endorse evolution in his findings. Basically, he was willing to do anything they asked except the stuff they needed him to do.
So his job was to endorse evolution as the mechanism for the origin of life? He's a fish expert. He said he was willing to do the work, just not renounce his religious beliefs.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Many theories? I know only one competing theory to evolution, Mendel's model of heredity. Which was of course superseded by the theory of evolution when it was found to be more accurate and supported by evidence.

I'm interested in hearing about these competing theories though.
Your sarcasm is noted.
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So his job was to endorse evolution as the mechanism for the origin of life? He's a fish expert. He said he was willing to do the work, just not renounce his religious beliefs.
From the job posting through which he applied for the position:

"Results will be interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study."
Quote is from this post here and John Irons, the source of this info shows up in the comments to confirm as well (comment #28), and also includes info from a letter his former boss at WHOI wrote to him regarding his dismissal: "you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work."

So yes, his job was indeed to "endorse evolution as the mechanism for the origin of life," he knew it when he signed on, and he refused to do it once he had the job, potentially jeopardizing the ability to publish papers including research he worked on.
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 04:38 PM
 
So he was lying when he said he deserved $500,000 and the Discovery Institute was egging him on? I'm shocked.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 04:57 PM
 
Sounds like it was all a big set-up. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he was looking for it to make the news.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Your sarcasm is noted.
Your evasion of providing alternative theories is noted.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Your evasion of providing alternative theories is noted.
Your sarcastic reply makes it clear that such an endeavor would be a wasted effort.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 09:41 PM
 
I don't think it would be wasted if there were credible alternatives.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2007, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Your sarcastic reply makes it clear that such an endeavor would be a wasted effort.
What peeb said.

There are no alternative theories. Period.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
What peeb said.

There are no alternative theories. Period.
As I implied, your closed mind is noted.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 03:49 AM
 
Secret Knowledge™
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 04:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
As I implied, your closed mind is noted.


I am more than open to any valid theory challenging the theory of evolution. Seriously. I wouldn't be a scientist if I wasn't.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post


I am more than open to any valid theory challenging the theory of evolution. Seriously. I wouldn't be a scientist if I wasn't.
What you choose to call yourself has little relevance to the debate. It's clear you've made up your mind and no amount of arguing is going to change it.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What you choose to call yourself has little relevance to the debate. It's clear you've made up your mind and no amount of arguing is going to change it.
Maybe that's because arguing on the internet doesn't change and has no bearing on the objective truth. "I posted a google link to a fundie website on a Mac message board" doesn't quite do it when you're talking about the fundamental basis of all the life and earth sciences.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Maybe that's because arguing on the internet doesn't change and has no bearing on the objective truth. "I posted a google link to a fundie website on a Mac message board" doesn't quite do it when you're talking about the fundamental basis of all the life and earth sciences.
Neither does a reply essentially of "hey, look at all this possibly circumstantial evidence, that makes it a FACT". You don't base scientific facts on the best, but unproven theory. Theory? Yes. Fact. No. It's clear though that some people here who think of themselves as scientists engage in this kind of faulty logic. There's no arguing with those types. It's a waste of energy.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 11:14 AM
 
Oh the irony.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 02:17 PM
 
It's also patently clear that folks who like to argue against evolution either have no clue what the word Theory means in a scientific framework or they persist in deliberately misrepresenting so as to handwave the far more than merely "circumstantial" evidence away. Funny thing about the English language; many words have multiple, varied meanings and the idea is to utilize those meanings in the proper context, not to cherry-pick the one that you think best diminishes the other side.

The word you're really describing is "hypothesis," not theory. Evolution has insane amounts of physical, genetic and historic evidence for it, it is consistently used to predict where we might find more fossils (successfully, I might add) and to design treatments for diseases -- and that's just a few of the real, valid and proven uses of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fact -- it happens, it has happened, it will continue to happen. The exact mechanisms are still being worked out and may never be fully known and so the theoretical framework is under constant revision, but this by no means implies it is "unproven."
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Neither does a reply essentially of "hey, look at all this possibly circumstantial evidence, that makes it a FACT". You don't base scientific facts on the best, but unproven theory. Theory? Yes. Fact. No. It's clear though that some people here who think of themselves as scientists engage in this kind of faulty logic. There's no arguing with those types. It's a waste of energy.
You're misinterpreting what people are saying to justify your view so you can dodge having to produce any real substance.

Edit: Didn't see Barnett's post, he has the gist of it.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 02:49 PM
 
possibly circumstantial = probably not circumstantial. Same as all science. Gravity: just because the apple falls at the same speed each time we drop it doesn't mean it will the next time too. Optics: hey you never know if a prism works because of the properties of photons or because it's just a coinkidink. Thermodynamics: maybe perpetual motion is possible and God is just hiding it so he'll have it all to himself. Antibiotics: using soap is no healthier than not using it; if those crazy soap users are getting sick less often it's just circumstantial. Et cetera ad infinitum. All possibilities. Seriously. Just not probabilities.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett View Post
It's also patently clear that folks who like to argue against evolution either have no clue what the word Theory means....
I have EVERY clue what "theory" means. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out or to look in a dictionary. It also doesn't take a genius to figure out the lengths some will go to try and change the meaning of words with qualifiers so that you can claim that they no longer mean what normal everyday folk know they mean so that they can feel better about the intellectual dishonesty they engage in when they try to turn a theory into a fact without ample evidence. If you want to use a qualifier, use it. Don't make false claims without them though and infer that it's people who use the words properly who have the problem. It only serves to make your argument look desperate.

Evolution is a fact -- it happens, it has happened, it will continue to happen.
Evolution as the source of the origin of the species is not a fact, it's a theory the same as other options. No mattter what other facts you may possess, it won't change THAT fact. We simply aren't at a point scientifically where you can dismiss all other options when you've just got one which is more likely. More likely, does not equal "fact". I sure hope there aren't scientists out there that think it does. SCARY!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
possibly circumstantial = probably not circumstantial. Same as all science. Gravity: just because the apple falls at the same speed each time we drop it doesn't mean it will the next time too.
It can be tested and the same results achieved every time. We aren't at that point scientifically with evidence which PROVES evolution as the means of the origin of the species. Sorry.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 09:58 PM
 
Yes, actually we are:

Chromosome fusion

It's relatively recent, so I don't blame you for not knowing about it yet.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Evolution as the source of the origin of the species is not a fact, it's a theory the same as other options.
You won't get far with that excuse if you keep refusing to describe the "other options."

We simply aren't at a point scientifically where you can dismiss all other options when you've just got one which is more likely. More likely, does not equal "fact". I sure hope there aren't scientists out there that think it does. SCARY!
No scientist ever does, in any field. Scientific conclusions are not "facts," they just use that word to translate into the "everyday folk" language you mentioned. ALL scientific conclusions are subject to being disproven given new evidence. ALL of them. The only thing it means to be a scientific conclusion is that they are more likely, given the current evidence. There is no "dismiss all other options." It should relieve you to learn, that's just a strawman.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, actually we are:

Chromosome fusion

It's relatively recent, so I don't blame you for not knowing about it yet.
Back to our good buddy Kenneth Miller.

YouTube - Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 10:13 PM
 
Yeah I found out about it from him.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, actually we are:

Chromosome fusion

It's relatively recent, so I don't blame you for not knowing about it yet.
I would like to note that this is the biological equivalent of finding somebody holding a smoking gun over the body of a woman who has scrawled "This man shot me" in her own blood on the ground. Like, I guess you can come up with some other explanation, but that's going to have to be one heck of an interesting explanation.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2007, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Scientific conclusions are not "facts,"..
Neither are theories. Thanks.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2007, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I would like to note that this is the biological equivalent of finding somebody holding a smoking gun over the body of a woman who has scrawled "This man shot me" in her own blood on the ground. Like, I guess you can come up with some other explanation, but that's going to have to be one heck of an interesting explanation.
There's an interesting explanation, but it has little to do with science. It is suggested that an intelligent designer fused the chromosomes. No kidding. Their arguments?

- While individuals may have randomly-fused chromosomes or extra chromosomes and remain normal, evidence suggests their offspring pay a heavy price. They may cite Down Syndrome as an example.

Problem; While an individual with Down Syndrome is not likely to carry to term and any offspring would almost assuredly have Down Syndrome, they can reproduce. Also, this is not the result of chromosomal fusion, but incorrect cell division.

- When one states that the above is possible if the individual mates with someone else who had an identical chromosomal fusion or splitting event, ID proponents invoke the mathematical probabilities argument. The chance of two similarly-affected individuals being in proximity to one another, mating, and in great enough numbers to produce viable offspring for the anomaly to become fixed is mathematically improbable.

Problem; You can say that the odds are slim to even none, but the fact remains that evidence suggests strongly it did. You can say that it didn't happen by chance, but you'd have to make a stronger argument for a different force behind the fusion event. You can't.

- ID proponents conclude that while there is strong evidence suggesting a chromosomal fusion event at some point in human history, there's no reason to connect it with chimps. They maintain that a random chromosomal fusion event would ultimately result in non viable offspring and therefore could not become fixed in a population. They also contend that the perception of similarities between chimps and humans will not increase, but decrease the more we stare and compare.

Problem; There's no reason to connect the chromosomal event with any other animal. The chromosomes are virtually identical. Again, you can't generally accept that evidence suggests a fused chromosome yet insist that chromosomal fusion cannot happen. The perception of similarities between chimps and humans may decrease with more research, but obstacles in scientific understanding are not affirmations of ID.

Conclusion; Calling science names such as Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, naturalism, materialism, dogma, pseudo-science and the like are not affirmations of ID. ID must produce a theory of its own and indicate with empirical evidence why it is a more compelling case than any of the above. If scientifically proving God's existence is this important to faith, those adhering to the doctrines of faith must be able to compete at the table of science. If they can't, perhaps God wanted it this way.
ebuddy
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2007, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post


I am more than open to any valid theory challenging the theory of evolution. Seriously. I wouldn't be a scientist if I wasn't.
You aren't.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2007, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I have EVERY clue what "theory" means. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out or to look in a dictionary. It also doesn't take a genius to figure out the lengths some will go to try and change the meaning of words with qualifiers so that you can claim that they no longer mean what normal everyday folk know they mean so that they can feel better about the intellectual dishonesty they engage in when they try to turn a theory into a fact without ample evidence. If you want to use a qualifier, use it. Don't make false claims without them though and infer that it's people who use the words properly who have the problem. It only serves to make your argument look desperate.
Please. Desperate? It's the folks who are refusing to accept evolution who are desperate. I just love how you took out the rest of that paragraph you quoted, as if it weren't relevant at all, btw. Here let me restate it again for you:

...a scientific framework or they persist in deliberately misrepresenting so as to handwave the far more than merely "circumstantial" evidence away. Funny thing about the English language; many words have multiple, varied meanings and the idea is to utilize those meanings in the proper context, not to cherry-pick the one that you think best diminishes the other side.
The more you cherry-pick quotes, the more you appear to fall on the side of deliberate misrepresentation. Again, the word that best fits the meaning you are so desperate to attach to "theory" is "hypothesis." Theories make predictions. Theories have use in scientific endeavors. Theories are --in the context of science (oooh, there's that idea again -- context)-- second only to hard, physical laws. They are developed beyond the stage of "hey, this is a cool idea" to "this framework best answers this set of questions and can drive new areas of research."

So, tell me, honestly. What sort of predictions of future discoveries can Creationism/ID make about the origin of life? Can they tell us in what strata we might find a new transitional species, like evolutionary theory did for the tiktaalik discovery? Can they point in interesting directions for research on genetic development or cures for disease?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I sure hope there aren't scientists out there that think it does. SCARY!
Any scientist who doesn't work for or associate with the Discovery Institute accepts evolution as fact. They may disagree on the exact processes by which it works and maybe the time frames, but that's where the theoretical framework comes in. What's scary is how many people refuse to do anything but accept a word-for-word interpretation of a many-times-translated 2000-yr old book.

Finally, scientists are in the exact same position on Gravitational Theory. Gravity is a fact. Objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other. That's not in dispute. However, they don't know how it works. There's lots of research and argumentation about exactly what drives gravitation, same as in evolution. They're both scientific Theories, and to try to use one definition of the word for evolution while accepting a much more solid definition of theory for gravity is dishonest.
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2007, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There's an interesting explanation, but it has little to do with science. It is suggested that an intelligent designer fused the chromosomes.
I was expecting the rest of the explanation to point to this somehow. Maybe I just missed it but is there any reasoning supporting this, or is it just because nothing else is probable (leave alone possible)? I find this idea pretty interesting.

-When one states that the above is possible if the individual mates with someone else who had an identical chromosomal fusion or splitting event, ID proponents invoke the mathematical probabilities argument.
Unless it's their sibling, both getting the fused chromosomes from the same parent. Then its about 50/50. Of course, then all of humanity would have to arise from that one family, sort of like Adam and Eve. Blood relatives, kinda puts a new spin on that Adam's Rib story.

ID proponents conclude that while there is strong evidence suggesting a chromosomal fusion event at some point in human history, there's no reason to connect it with chimps.
Chromosomal fusion was predicted by our homology with chimps, not vice versa.

They maintain that a random chromosomal fusion event would ultimately result in non viable offspring and therefore could not become fixed in a population.
Don't forget that the founder also has a monozomy half. Some of his offspring will have one extra chromosome's worth, one will have one chromosome's worth missing. Interbreed those a few times and you'll get offspring with one fused copy and no extra copies. Even though Adam and Eve might have had the equivalent of Down syndrome, Cain and Abel might be fine again. Of course they'd have to have some sisters to carry on with...
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2007, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I was expecting the rest of the explanation to point to this somehow. Maybe I just missed it but is there any reasoning supporting this, or is it just because nothing else is probable (leave alone possible)? I find this idea pretty interesting.
Believe me, I find the ideas interesting also, but disappointed time and again. The explanation can't point to ID in any way more meaningful than simply pointing out the problems they see in evolution.

Unless it's their sibling, both getting the fused chromosomes from the same parent. Then its about 50/50. Of course, then all of humanity would have to arise from that one family, sort of like Adam and Eve. Blood relatives, kinda puts a new spin on that Adam's Rib story.
Incest was the way of the time. History suggests it. The Bible suggests it. Makes sense that at some point it would've been necessary, but yeah... certainly not explained in terms of mutations. So... Adam is Lucy? Ewww.

Chromosomal fusion was predicted by our homology with chimps, not vice versa.
Bingo! That's why I questioned why you'd connect it to any other animal.

Don't forget that the founder also has a monozomy half. Some of his offspring will have one extra chromosome's worth, one will have one chromosome's worth missing. Interbreed those a few times and you'll get offspring with one fused copy and no extra copies. Even though Adam and Eve might have had the equivalent of Down syndrome, Cain and Abel might be fine again. Of course they'd have to have some sisters to carry on with...
Remember, Cain killed Abel. Cain was the love-machine. Biblically, there were three siblings mentioned; Cain, Abel, and eventually Seth though it is clear that Adam and Eve had other children. There was a gap of 130 years between the time Cain and Abel was born and when Seth was born. Genesis; “And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” Josephus suggests that Adam and Eve bore approximately 33 sons and 23 daughters according to old tradition. Adam lived some 930 years. That's a lot of time to father a whole bunch of kids in accordance with the mandate to be fruitful and multiply.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2007, 05:58 PM
 
GOD had us evolve from lower species. Thats what he did so as we research our theories we become smarter. God set it all in motion when he made our universe. Hes' trying some other stuff in some of his other universes.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2007, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
GOD had us evolve from lower species. Thats what he did so as we research our theories we become smarter. God set it all in motion when he made our universe. Hes' trying some other stuff in some of his other universes.
That is a possible, albeit un-testable, answer to the question of origins. However, it doesn't dis-prove the theory of evolution as an answer to the question of changes/mutations/adaptations.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2007, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
You aren't.
I'm not?

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
I'm not?
You are a scientist? What sort?

“Building Better Worlds”
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett View Post
Any scientist who doesn't work for or associate with the Discovery Institute accepts evolution as fact.
First, I question whether such an illogical appeal to authority even deserves a response, but I'll go ahead and give it a go....

They accept "Evolution" as a mechanism by which some things change in certain ways? Sure. I don't dispute that. Evolution as the impetus for the origin of the species (which is a separate claim)? Nope. There are plenty that dispute that or simply don't except it as a proven fact. Some scientists do believe in I.D. type explanations as well. I'm sure that there are some who think that it's currently the best guess, but possibly there are other better explanations that simply haven't been discovered yet. When you falsely imply (due to ignorance or possibly arrogance) that there are none that think differently, it's that sort of nonsense that makes your argument and those that agree with you look desperate.

Science if full of stories where people were 100% sure that their observations weren't just circumstantial, but rather factual. Becquerel, a French physicist, discovered that despite not being able to do his experiments involving photographic plates on overcast days, he could expose the plates by putting them in a drawer with some uranium crystals. Of course, he was sure that the uranium crystals had simply stored the energy of the sun and that was what had allowed the plates to be developed. It took the Curries years later with further scientific advancements to figure out that there was a previously unknown force at work called radiation which was responsible for Becquerel's observations.

The point is that you and others need to stop using the term "evolution" in what appears to be such an absolute way if you want to be taken seriously by those who know better, when many of the matters we are talking about are not absolute or anywhere close to being proven as fact. Stick to what's been proven and you'll have less to worry about.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 03:08 AM
 
Is seems like what you're saying boils down to "I don't believe in science." That's fine for you, but you shouldn't kid yourself that you have a good reason why things you don't agree with aren't scientific, when the reason you dislike them is exactly because they are scientific. You're not doing yourself any favors by shying from your convictions. Just come on out with it, you don't believe in science. You'll feel better.

PS: what's your explanation for the ol' smoking gun the rest of us have been discussing?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 03:27 AM
 
Scientific theories don't become facts. Scientific theories explain facts. If the facts contradicts the scientific theory, then the theory becomes invalid.

Fact: Objects like an apple falls to the ground
Scientific Theory: Theory of Gravity
God Mentality: World is flat. Things just fall downward.

Fact: Birds fly
Scientific Theory: Theory of Aerodynamics
God Mentality: God created the creatures to fly

Fact: Mechanical energy can be converted into electrical energy
Scientific Theory: Theory of Thermodynamics
God Mentality: God made it possible

Fact: We see light from distant stars millions of light years away
Scientific Theory: Speed of light has been pretty much constant and tells us how old is the universe.
God Mentality: God created the universe 10,000 years ago. Light was much faster 10,000 years ago, and have slowed down considerably because God wants to fool humans.

Fact: Dinosaur fossils found
Scientific Theory: Through radioactive dating, these dinosaurs are millions of years old and existed before mankind.
God Mentality: God create dinosaurs along with adam and eve. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Fact: Mutations and adaptations occur in organism. Observed by studying the living organism and looking at its genetics.
Scientific Theory: Theory of evolution. The gradual adaption, mutation, and evolutionary changes eventually leads to new species.
God Mentality: Yes, but only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Mutations can't change one species to a totally new species. Show me that a monkey evolving to a human.


Scientific theories aren't facts, they explain facts.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 04:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
You are a scientist? What sort?
The kind that applies science.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
The kind that applies science.
Certainly it is no one's business if you'd rather they don't know. I must say though, I'm dying of curiosity. Is there a particular field of science you're currently involved in?
ebuddy
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cipher13 View Post
Awesome, so he should have been. Carry on.
And those earth is flat people should have been burned for thinking than something other than the common belief held by society at the time.

And other weird exaggerations that I can't believe anyone would say just because a human holds a different opinion as you do.

It almost seems like your post is a self defense mechanism for he even existing.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I don't think it would be wasted if there were credible alternatives.
In here? yes. Anytime they get brought out, they attack the person or the OP and not what is said. We've done this dance about 1000 times in here. No one is gonna change their minds.

Again, tolerance isn't about accepting another person's viewpoints. Tolerance is how you treat those very people that don't view things the way you do.

BTW I am a big believer in Biogenesis.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 09:16 AM
 
I disagree - if credible alternatives to evolution were presented here, they would be given serious consideration. You can only tolerate being hit over the head with an empty pig's bladder so often.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Certainly it is no one's business if you'd rather they don't know. I must say though, I'm dying of curiosity. Is there a particular field of science you're currently involved in?
Yes.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2007, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I disagree - if credible alternatives to evolution were presented here, they would be given serious consideration. You can only tolerate being hit over the head with an empty pig's bladder so often.
Again, it's been done. It wasn't taken seriously. People were belittled and it turned into an giant knee-jerk reaction.

BTW when most people refer to evolution they are really thinking about HOW it happened. Not what happened. That is where the great debate is. HOW it happened. No one knows HOW it happened.

I don't deny that things have evolved over a period of time. I just don't think we have a inkling of a clue as to what this means or represents or in what time process this went on. Or how relevant it even is.

Too many people attempt to use Evolution as a way to EXPLAIN why life exists. Evolution simply doesn't give such answers. I don't think evolutionary beliefs and creationism are against each other in the classic sense.

Having said that, I am a big fan of the Biogenesis belief. That all living matter was created by other living matter.

That we didn't just come from "nothing"
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,