No this article makes a great argument why we should not put much stock in mainstream science reporting.
4 Likes
The more we learn, the stronger the evidence becomes, and from multiple branches of science.
You may not like it, but I must regrettably inform you that science does not care about your feelings.
It seems you are using last week’s script.
Please check back with your shift supervisor.
4 Likes
Was this story meant to be published on April 1st by any chance?
Intelligent design must be true, as there’s no evidence at all that its supporters have evolved one iota from less developed forms of life.
7 Likes
I’ll say it, people will get upset no matter what anyone says nowadays.
God.
The scientist are straining to keep the water out of the evolution boat afloat and many of the passengers still aren’t aware how many and how big the holes are at this point. Some scientist are still trying to patch the boat with aliens. while the passengers still have faith, smug denials and scoffing.
But the facts of the fine tuning of the universe, where the odds are off the charts for it to be. You Need DNA to MAKE DNA. The full on information PACKED message system of DNA, then they’ve discovered epigenetic information, some electric, laid on top of DNA, it all screams that there’s a code writer. The odds are impossible for ANY random chems to create the plethora of living codes. And that’s not to mention all the evolution failed predictions that have piled up over the past few decades, 2 obvious relate to the above are “Junk DNA” and “vestigial organs”. the predictions were false. BAD, dead end ‘science stopper’ science. no junk, no vestigials. ALL living systems micro and macro clearly have PURPOSE in their present forms. it’s not a pretty picture for evolution on any level.
However, It’s not really an ‘either or’ there though is it?
“…not put much stock in scientists.”
“…not put much stock in mainstream science reporting.”
seems both are appropriate. 'trust but verify"
Per the law of large numbers, it was actually guaranteed to happen somewhere, sometime. It just looks impossible because we can only see the one success (that we’re part of) and not the billions of misses. Given enough time and places (which our universe does have sufficient amounts of) any sequence of random events can occur at least once. We got lucky enough to be here when it did. No programmer needed.
8 Likes
Gary Gygax predicted this back in the 1970s.
In his Monster Manual for Dungeons and Dragons you can find the Mindflayer, aka Illithid. An octopoid headed species from the far future end of the universe who were cast back in time in order to preserve their evil empire and species.
Therefore, Gary Gygax was an alien (probably a Githyanki).
2 Likes
Tell Zoidberg to cheer up.
He’s a crustacean, and crustaceas belong to the phylum Arthropoda.
The proud order of Octopoda, whose extraterristial origin is being denied here, belongs to the phylum of Mollusca.
No one in this thread has said that crustaceans are from Earth. No one would dare, because that would really make Zoidberg cry.
Actually totally makes sense. There’s a lot of work ongoing into rapid mutation. DNA seems to serve as a reservoir of DNA survival strategies.
So my question is - if it’s not ALL the DNA that’s being protected, what is it? What’s the brainy core hiding in those helix strands?!
I don’t think I understand all of what you wrote in your comment, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist and I haven’t reviewed the last decade of publications in that field.
In the bit I quoted above, you suggest that the practice of science is like writing out a geometric proof, that there’s a right answer or a wrong answer. But that’s not how the scientific method works. Scientists propose ideas, then look for evidence that supports those ideas. When the evidence isn’t there, scientists don’t throw away the whole field of inquiry, they refine their question and ask again.
The issue that a lot of us have with intelligent design is that it proclaims that since science hasn’t yet answered all the questions we have about evolutionary biology, those questions are therefore unanswerable, and we should stop looking.
ID tries to end the inquiry into the existence and development of life on Earth because it is not an intellectually honest endeavor. It is, rather, a Trojan horse, created from whole cloth to infiltrate religious thought into public education. It wants to salvage religious belief by replacing skepticism with didacticism, but in the words of Anne Lamott , ”The enemy of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.”
3 Likes
As he’s an alien, Zoidberg doesn’t belong in Earth’s phylogenetic tree. Therefore he is not Crustacea, regardless of how much he may superficially resemble one.
1 Like
As far as ID goes.
simply put. If a person finds a strange device on the beach, and finds again and again every Idea proposed that it was made naturally seems to fail and has to be readjusted into only the bare outer concept without any solid working details. But sees writing on the inside cover and other well known indicators of manufacture. Then it’s not crazy to assume that it was in fact manufactured. the discovery/acknowledgement of a manufacturer does not stop inquiry into the device. How it works, what it’s made of, the make up of the raw materials, it’s various abilities. But it does close at least part of the useless search for “natural” causes to be the base of the device in every respect.
the fact that there was a Thomas Edison (and Tesla) doesn’t mean you stop discovers on electricity or the light bulb or the firefly. You just stop assuming/pretending/insisting that ALL of them are BY DEFAULT “naturally” occurring.
And, as far as how science works, as you say, in many areas “Scientists propose ideas, then look for evidence that supports those ideas. When the evidence isn’t there, scientists don’t throw away the whole field of inquiry, they refine their question and ask again.”
But as i pointed out the theory of evolution slowed and nearly stopped the search for the purpose of various DNA simply because it was BELIEVED that “90% of DNA is Junk”. Mainly based on the ideas (1) Scientists didn’t KNOW what it did. and (2) evolution predicts there would be left overs from millions of mutations. (plus the fact that the DNA was discovered were a blow to Darwinism in the sense that Darwin predicted the innards of cells would SIMPLY blob rather than the super complex information dense structure.)
the ‘Structure of the field of inquiry’ in medicine had determined “stress” and “certain foods” caused stomach Ulcers until a few drs noticed the Pylori bacteria. They were able to STEP OUTSIDE of the normal field of inquiry of “Stress, mind, nervous system to gut” million dollar research programs, and look at a completely different ORIGINAL cause. Initially the Drs were rebuffed and mocked. the initial circumstantial evidence alone did not change the mindset for some time. But the point is the main research area was nearly completely wrong. Even
though i suspect that the fact that that rabbit trail of ‘Stress research’ did yield some useful insights into the human body. Just NOT the true CUASE of most Ulcers.
the same happen with Ignaz Semmelweis and germ theory in general. “Bad Humors” and the like
were thought to be the proper ’field of inquiry’ for disease and the pre-microscopic experimentation that Semmelweis did using soaps and proving the dramatic lessening of disease transfer in patients did not break the Scientific idea/field of inquiry about Humours. Eventually they did completely abandon that ‘field of inquiry’, but scientific inquiry goes on.
Evolution, unlike many other scientific ideas is based on a lot of speculation and story telling about imagined past events. and the predictions, IF TRUE, should have born out far more fundamentally observable outcomes. but in every area “adjustments” (new guesses) have to be made because scientist were “shocked” to discover the proposed idea didn’t pan out.
So maybe the overall Idea is flawed. many scientist are looking elsewhere because the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian synthesis IDEAS are not panning out. over and over again so …. cue “Aliens”. Which even the discoverer of DNA Francis Crick proposed because he realized as well that there was NOT enough time for this information dense manufacturing structure to evolve on earth as well. And, that was when they thought that 90% of the DNA was JUNK!
Also you mentioned Certainty.
It seems to me that many people are “certain” that evolution is true.
And are “certain” that material causes are the ONLY proper field of inquiry.
Can there be no scientific questions about those assumption?
yes,
Biologist Ann Gauger discusses an article in BIO-Complexity that she and Douglas Axe authored. Dr. Gauger shares how she tested the changes necessary to evolve enzymes by a Darwinian mechanism, Ann Gauger received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
Parts 1 and 2
Casey Luskin continues his interview with Biologic Institute director Douglas Axe about his paper, “The Limit of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” in BIO-Complexity. Listen in as Dr. Axe reports on the work done at Biologic Institute to test whether amino acids are able to be converted from one function to another in Darwinian step-wise fashion.
If you’re really interested in some science… rather than posting memes?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
