|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2012 : 11:03:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Under stress/starvation they will develop as a multicellular organism and go through a stage of filamentous grown known as pseudohyphae. |
But you said, "But to use the word multicullar interchangably with pseudohyphae is inaccurate because multicellular requires more than going through a clumping/pseudohyphae stage." So do you think that S. cerevisiae is unicellular or multicellular, given that you correctly stated that pseudohyphal growth is not enough to classify an organism as multicellular?| Failing to deal with his ignorance of basic biology and now on page 15 of the discussion. He is asking this. |
No, I'm asking what you think. I'm not asking because I don't know the correct answer.
|
You are just repeating yourself, DaveW. I already tried to help you understand the difference. Why can't you read and grasp something like the brewers yeast S. cerevisiae, which is really a very simple organism. Read my post again. If you don't get it, get help!!!
You keep saying you are not asking because you don't know the correct answer. So you are asking to see if I know. But I have already told you several times what they are. So how can you say you are still not asking because you don't know the correct answer,(that sound like a double negative) when even after I have given you the answer in so many earlier post, it just escapes you.
That is what you call a learning disability. And SFN is not the place you seek help. Not at your advanced age.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/27/2012 11:05:36 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:17:35 [Permalink]
|
For Jamalrapper's benefit: Behe might be the champion of irreducible complexity, but his ideas do not challenge that evolution (that is the changing of one species to a different biological species over time) happens. Many of his supporters don't seem to understand that about his claims.
Let alone that his ideas are stupid and have been repeatedly well-challenged. Even if his ideas were well supported, it wouldn't conflict with the fact that humans evolved from ape-like hominids, which evolved from other animals, etc. Behe just wants to get God in there somewhere. He doesn't agree with the crazy, hard-core Creationist idea of the young earth and all species being created at once and never changing afterward.
Anyway, in response to Ebone's original post, yeah, I think maybe it could be a good thing these creationists keep trying to dress up their ideas as science to get it into the public schools and then being humiliated when intelligent authority figures look at what they are claiming close up.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 13:06:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
For Jamalrapper's benefit: Behe might be the champion of irreducible complexity, but his ideas do not challenge that evolution (that is the changing of one species to a different biological species over time) happens. Many of his supporters don't seem to understand that about his claims.
Let alone that his ideas are stupid and have been repeatedly well-challenged. Even if his ideas were well supported, it wouldn't conflict with the fact that humans evolved from ape-like hominids, which evolved from other animals, etc. Behe just wants to get God in there somewhere. He doesn't agree with the crazy, hard-core Creationist idea of the young earth and all species being created at once and never changing afterward.
Anyway, in response to Ebone's original post, yeah, I think maybe it could be a good thing these creationists keep trying to dress up their ideas as science to get it into the public schools and then being humiliated when intelligent authority figures look at what they are claiming close up.
|
Welcome. marfknox. I would have offered you the best seat in the house being the gentleman I am. So don't hastily judge me when I hold back additional praise.
Behe's Irreducible Complexity questions Darwins theory of slow gradual evolution of species which is a slow gradual progressive process under Natural selection.
The idea that a complex organism evolved from simple steps to use the analogy of a cars steering system is not possible. The wheels of the car cannot be precursors to the steering column. The wheeels have no idea how a steering column can be developed.
So....unless the entire system was developed at the same time and none of the individual parts (wheels, steering column, steering wheel) were precursors to each other. And as individual parts they could not function as a steering system. So they had to be designed from the start that way. Who, how, why are not answered, just a suggestion there is a Intelligent Designer.
In short there are very complex organism in nature which are irreducibly complex and Darwin was not aware of them. Not having the benefit of modern science etc.
Darwin said. " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
"Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
I don't know what the problem is with getting god in the picture. Theist evolutionist Ken Miller has god at the beginning of creation and evolution. The process that is being followed are the laws created by god. The laws such as gravity, naturalistic laws are consistent with evolution...because evolutionary processes have to obey it, and is subjected to it. Or we would all float away.
What is rejected is the interruption of this process by divine intervention to correct course. What ID is being blamed for this constant meddling by a divine creator.
But ID has its roots in biology and are evolutionist. Because one cannot explain away something unless one is fully conversant with it. It is in areas that are not intelligently supported, alternate answers are needed. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 13:30:00 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
It is in areas that are not intelligently supported, alternate answers are needed. |
But "God did it" is not an intelligent answer. It's a lazy answer. It's completely unsupportable and it isn't science. If an alternative answer is needed, it has to be a scientific answer. That's why Miller rejects ID.
ID has yet to offer any support for its most basic contentions.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 13:33:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The idea that a complex organism evolved from simple steps to use the analogy of a cars steering system is not possible. The wheels of the car cannot be precursors to the steering column. |
Arguments by analogy are often poor.| The wheeels have no idea how a steering column can be developed. |
Anthropomorphizing is inappropriate when the topic is evolution.| So....unless the entire system was developed at the same time and none of the individual parts (wheels, steering column, steering wheel) were precursors to each other. And as individual parts they could not function as a steering system. So they had to be designed from the start that way. |
But they weren't. Historically. Which is why that is an exceptionally poor analogy.| In short there are very complex organism in nature which are irreducibly complex... |
Provide evidence that any organism is irreducibly complex.I don't know what the problem is with getting god in the picture. Theist evolutionist Ken Miller has god at the beginning of creation and evolution. The process that is being followed are the laws created by god. The laws such as gravity, naturalistic laws are consistent with evolution...because evolutionary processes have to obey it, and is subjected to it. Or we would all float away.
What is rejected is the interruption of this process by divine intervention to correct course. What ID is being blamed for this constant meddling by a divine creator. |
No and no. Another failure for your understanding of the criticisms leveled at ID. ID is blamed for seeking to end the scientific process altogether by saying "goddidit," while Miller is determined to find out how goddoneit.| But ID has its roots in biology and are evolutionist. |
No, ID has its roots in finding a way around a court decision that barred "scientific creationism" from being taught in public schools.| Because one cannot explain away something unless one is fully conversant with it. |
Then you aren't fully conversant with the history of ID. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 14:01:44 [Permalink]
|
Behe is a biologist, Axe is a biologist. Their papers are on molecular biology not religion. You like to pin motives on everyone. That is because you are very insecure. Define your own contribution here and not keep putting people down by breaking down post to single line sentences that can be taken out of context.
Get to the point. We all know you have to place one foot before the other and shift weight to walk. Do you have to apply that to understanding as well. The brain processes data much faster. Maximize your if you can. Space us your arthritic pace. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/27/2012 14:02:03 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 14:21:35 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
Behe is a biologist, Axe is a biologist. |
And Duane Gish is a biologist. So? They are in that less than one percent who are creationists. Every field has its crackpots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 14:21:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Behe is a biologist, Axe is a biologist. |
Behe is a biologist by training, but his ideas have been explicitly and unequivocally rejected by his colleagues where he works. Axe is a biologist by training, but seems to only be publishing in his own vanity journal funded by the Discovery Institute.| Their papers are on molecular biology not religion. |
Their papers on molecular biology are motivated by religious zeal.| You like to pin motives on everyone. |
Only when the motives are obvious. In this case, their whole point is to try to discredit evolutionary biology. That's all ID is in general.| That is because you are very insecure. |
Now you're projecting again.| Define your own contribution here and not keep putting people down by breaking down post to single line sentences that can be taken out of context. |
Show me where I've taken you out of context.The point was clear: ID isn't science. It was born of a court case in which religion was banned from public science classrooms, because creationists aren't satisfied with practicing their own religion freely, they feel the need to use the force of government to mandate everyone else share their delusions, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 14:32:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Behe is a biologist, Axe is a biologist. |
Behe is a biologist by training, but his ideas have been explicitly and unequivocally rejected by his colleagues where he works. Axe is a biologist by training, but seems to only be publishing in his own vanity journal funded by the Discovery Institute.| Their papers are on molecular biology not religion. |
Their papers on molecular biology are motivated by religious zeal.| You like to pin motives on everyone. |
Only when the motives are obvious. In this case, their whole point is to try to discredit evolutionary biology. That's all ID is in general.| That is because you are very insecure. |
Now you're projecting again.| Define your own contribution here and not keep putting people down by breaking down post to single line sentences that can be taken out of context. |
Show me where I've taken you out of context.The point was clear: ID isn't science. It was born of a court case in which religion was banned from public science classrooms, because creationists aren't satisfied with practicing their own religion freely, they feel the need to use the force of government to mandate everyone else share their delusions, too.
|
We have already gone through this DaveW. You cannot rely on a courts decision to validate science. The courts have resisted gay unions but it is legal in many states. The court have legalized abortion but considers killing of a fetus in an accident where both mother and fetus killed as double homicide.
It is a poor defense to use the courts decision especially US courts which varies from state to state.
Alchemy wasn't science but it paved the way for chemistry. I don't know what you are blowing all this steam about. You cannot even tell the difference between a model and live lab experiments. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/27/2012 14:33:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 15:32:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
We have already gone through this DaveW. You cannot rely on a courts decision to validate science. |
I never have. I simply explained the history of ID. ID was a direct consequence of a Supreme Court decision banning religion in public science classrooms. ID is an attempt to sneak mandated religious instruction back into the classroom.| You cannot even tell the difference between a model and live lab experiments. |
Liar. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 16:17:00 [Permalink]
|
I am exploring other topics on SFN. I have given up on science here. I have a problem when I am asked to stop using obscenities or be banished, and then to hear a macho old man throw one which I am not allowed to defend against. DaveW you are an admin here. This is a no win situation for me to see the cards are all stacked in your favor. You can call people liars and you banned CRUX when he called you the same. These are double standards Americans have lived with throughout their history.
I just hope this generation of young Americans who see Ron Paul as the only realist in the room against a trisomy of GOP presidential contenders reliving the 40's but not recognizing America is currently broke and desperate, offers some grim insight into SFN vulnerabilities.
The backers of SFN should get a scholar and a gentleman on the board and realize when they do things on the cheap. They will only get what they pay for. Lift the pre-condition and we can go mano to mano. Let us see who is a coward here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 19:04:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I am exploring other topics on SFN. I have given up on science here. I have a problem when I am asked to stop using obscenities or be banished, and then to hear a macho old man throw one which I am not allowed to defend against. DaveW you are an admin here. This is a no win situation for me to see the cards are all stacked in your favor. |
If you had stuck to science (instead of employing numerous logical fallacies and outright lies, and then resorting to insult when called on your bullshit), the playground would have been level. But this is my house, I set the rules. If you don't like them, you are free to go somewhere else.
In fact, since nobody invited you here, the real question is why you felt you could insult your hosts with impunity. I know now that that question will never be answered, because (A) you will dodge the issue and pretend I don't understand you, and (B) because you're now banned. Again.| You can call people liars and you banned CRUX when he called you the same. |
The difference between CRUX and I is that I'll happily show the evidential basis for my calling you a liar. CRUX was asked repeatedly to support his accusations, and refused because they were baseless.| Lift the pre-condition and we can go mano to mano. Let us see who is a coward here. |
Little late for that. Not that it would have helped you. The fact that you only feel like you can "win" if you have the ability to be obscene means that you don't have the facts on your side. Bye-bye, little man. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 07:51:09 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper wrote: Behe's Irreducible Complexity...
So....unless the entire system was developed at the same time and none of the individual parts (wheels, steering column, steering wheel) were precursors to each other. And as individual parts they could not function as a steering system. So they had to be designed from the start that way. Who, how, why are not answered, just a suggestion there is a Intelligent Designer.
...In short there are very complex organism in nature which are irreducibly complex and Darwin was not aware of them. |
*sigh* Gee, thanks for the recap./sarcasm I thought it was obvious from my post that I am familiar with Behe's ideas. But I guess not. I read his Darwin's Black Box book ten years ago and saw a debate between him and another biology around that time.
As I said, his idea of irreducible complexity has been well-challenged many times. But you don't seem to get the criticisms, and nobody else here seems to be able to explain them to you in a way that you get it, so I'm not going to try.
| I don't know what the problem is with getting god in the picture. |
There's not a problem when it comes to philosophical musing and personal belief. But if we're talking about science, God is an ill-defined concept that cannot be tested, so until that changes it's pretty irrelevant when we're using science to obtain information about the nature of objective reality.
What is rejected is the interruption of this process by divine intervention to correct course. What ID is being blamed for this constant meddling by a divine creator.
But ID has its roots in biology and are evolutionist. Because one cannot explain away something unless one is fully conversant with it. It is in areas that are not intelligently supported, alternate answers are needed. |
Just because philosophical/theological musings are in response to info obtained by science doesn't mean they are scientific. ID is nothing more than such speculation. From a strictly scientific point of view, it isn't worth bothering with. It is a boring dead end.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 08:03:03 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper wrote: | It is in areas that are not intelligently supported, alternate answers are needed. |
No. When questions cannot be intelligently supported, we need to accept that we don't have answers. If you are faced with the equation 4 + n = x you don't just start proclaiming that n=5 and therefore x=9. Those answers might be a logically consistent possibility, but so are millions of other possibilities. The only acceptable answer is that n and x are unknown and to then look for info that might help make them known.
The reality might be that there are some answers which are unknowable to us puny humans. I tend to think that is indeed the case. However, we don't know for sure one way or another, so it makes sense if we are curious about the truth about reality to keep looking for those answers in the hopes that they are obtainable. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
ThomasPellet
Sockpuppet
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2012 : 14:32:05 [Permalink]
|
| Can we continue the conversation marfknox when this jealous bunch stops interrupting up with all this unnecessary banning. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
