"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[Tiberius]

So you would use those middle school students as an authority in the scientific community.

I would not say that a junior high student performing science is more qualified than a scientist who has spent twenty years studying in a particular field.

But I would call the scientist with 20 years experience a fool if the junior high students follow the scientific methods and do good work and he dismisses them based on the fact that they are junior high students. The science speaks for itself, regardless of who is doing it.

"A hundred scientists agree that the Earth will implode on March 8th, 2019."

And if they have evidence to back up their claims, why shouldn't we listen to them?

 

[Tiberius]

Because they never account for the statistics that ARE known:

Example: Telomere structures. Apes/Primates have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA "repeats". Humans are unique among primates with 10,000 base pairs of telomeres. We are speaking of 13,000 changes, and we both realize 12,995 changes makes humans not humans! Say we believe the very earliest primates evolved on a straight descent toward humans--telomeres only is 60 million years for 13,000 "right, not wrong" changes:

Every 4,500 years or 450 generations, a change is made that works and spreads throughout the whole population--we are starting to stretch credulity here IMHO.

Care to provide an actual source for this?

 

[Prestor John]

I would not say that a junior high student performing science is more qualified than a scientist who has spent twenty years studying in a particular field.

Enough said.

But I would call the scientist with 20 years experience a fool if the junior high students follow the scientific methods and do good work and he dismisses them based on the fact that they are junior high students.

I have never claimed that their findings should be dismissed.

All I have claimed is that they are not scientists.

They are not authorities in the scientific community.

The science speaks for itself, regardless of who is doing it.

Agreed, but that does not make them scientists.

And if they have evidence to back up their claims, why shouldn't we listen to them?

Sure, once their findings are reviewed by actual scientists, I'd be happy to hear them out.

Because they aren't scientists.

 

[Tiberius]

I have never claimed that their findings should be dismissed.

All I have claimed is that they are not scientists.

They are not authorities in the scientific community.

If they are performing science, then yes, they are indeed scientists.

Once again, scientist is not a title to be earned. It is a description of someone who studies reality using the scientific method.

Agreed, but that does not make them scientists.

Why not?

Sure, once their findings are reviewed by actual scientists, I'd be happy to hear them out.

You mean peer reviewed?

You know what that word PEER means?

Because they aren't scientists.

If they are following the scientific method, yes they are.

Once again, "scientist" is not a title to be earned.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Care to provide an actual source for this?

I don't want to--learn what a telomere is, and stop being lazy, like all easy believers in the nonsense you believe...

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't see you answering much in the way of questions, I must say.

Because I don't answer foolish, moot questions, or rhetoric, the stock-in-trade of my skeptic friends who troll religious forums.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We are unique among primates. Does that entail you accept we are primares, right?

Don’t you think that gorillas, or bonobos, are also unique among primates? For if they were not, we could not distinguish between them.

Ciao

- viole

We are primates, the genetic differences are too numerous to be accounted for via mechanistic mutation, which typically does not enhance survivability, quite the opposite, actually.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because I don't answer foolish, moot questions, or rhetoric, the stock-in-trade of my skeptic friends who troll religious forums.

Come on, man. You don't answer any questions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We are primates, the genetic differences are too numerous to be accounted for via mechanistic mutation, which typically does not enhance survivability, quite the opposite, actually.

Can you demonstrate that claim?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't want to--learn what a telomere is, and stop being lazy, like all easy believers in the nonsense you believe...

Okay, if you don't want to support your own points, that's fine.

Just don't expect me to take you seriously when you come in here and make a big noise and then get lazy when it comes time to back up your claims.

 

[Polymath257]

We are primates, the genetic differences are too numerous to be accounted for via mechanistic mutation, which typically does not enhance survivability, quite the opposite, actually.

Really? What differences are essential and too numerous to be accounted for?

We need some changes in the jaw and throat, a few in development of brain and skull, and some in the hips. The basic structures are there in all great apes, but in humans they are tweaked a bit to allow a larger brain, upright posture, and a larger vocal range.

How many mutations do you think are required for those changes? What other ones do you think are necessary?

 

[Bear Wild]

We are primates, the genetic differences are too numerous to be accounted for via mechanistic mutation, which typically does not enhance survivability, quite the opposite, actually.

You need to read more on genetic expression the causes of variation. Just 2 mutation in the correct controlling gene has profound influences on language and communication ability. The genetic differences between different apes has more to do with the differences in the Immune system than it is the genetic differences in brain development. All are genetic differences are easily explained by mutations and genetic rearrangements as well as epigenetic expressions. The genetic similarities are greater that 98%, how much more similar do we have to be before you understand just how similar we are?

 

[Prestor John]

If they are performing science, then yes, they are indeed scientists.

Once again, scientist is not a title to be earned. It is a description of someone who studies reality using the scientific method.



Why not?



You mean peer reviewed?

You know what that word PEER means?



If they are following the scientific method, yes they are.

Once again, "scientist" is not a title to be earned.

Nope. They need education in a scientific field.

Good luck relying on all those middle school "scientists'.

 

[Tiberius]

Nope. They need education in a scientific field.

Good luck relying on all those middle school "scientists'.

You seem incapable of letting this go.

Scientist is not a title to be earned. It is a description of a person who is following a particular process. Accept it, or admit that your preconceptions are preventing you from having a rational discussion about this.

 

[Sapiens]

Because they never account for the statistics that ARE known:

Example: Telomere structures. Apes/Primates have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA "repeats". Humans are unique among primates with 10,000 base pairs of telomeres. We are speaking of 13,000 changes, and we both realize 12,995 changes makes humans not humans! Say we believe the very earliest primates evolved on a straight descent toward humans--telomeres only is 60 million years for 13,000 "right, not wrong" changes:

Every 4,500 years or 450 generations, a change is made that works and spreads throughout the whole population--we are starting to stretch credulity here IMHO.

Claims are lifted from "Answers in Genesis." With such a poor source it is understandable that BB would cut and paste without honest attribution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. They need education in a scientific field.

Good luck relying on all those middle school "scientists'.

Many amateurs have a healthy education in their avocations. They lack a formal education and that is not required at all. A formal education does help someone do work in the sciences but it is not a prerequisite. Astronomy has a proud history of contributions by amateurs for one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, if you don't want to support your own points, that's fine.

Just don't expect me to take you seriously when you come in here and make a big noise and then get lazy when it comes time to back up your claims.

Save me a few days--I show you a source with the vast difference in telomeres, and you say, "evolutiondidit" or...?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you demonstrate that claim?

Yes, I've posted elsewhere some math estimates regarding the likelihood of the telomeres changing in under 60 million years.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really? What differences are essential and too numerous to be accounted for?

We need some changes in the jaw and throat, a few in development of brain and skull, and some in the hips. The basic structures are there in all great apes, but in humans they are tweaked a bit to allow a larger brain, upright posture, and a larger vocal range.

How many mutations do you think are required for those changes? What other ones do you think are necessary?

I've cited the thousands of differences in telomeres alone.

What's inappropriate is to say, "bigger brain", let alone anything else, as if one gene piece makes the brain bigger, people more intelligent, etc.

How many DNA letters are needed to enhance the brain, its functions, its size, and human consciousness, do you know?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You need to read more on genetic expression the causes of variation. Just 2 mutation in the correct controlling gene has profound influences on language and communication ability. The genetic differences between different apes has more to do with the differences in the Immune system than it is the genetic differences in brain development. All are genetic differences are easily explained by mutations and genetic rearrangements as well as epigenetic expressions. The genetic similarities are greater that 98%, how much more similar do we have to be before you understand just how similar we are?

How many DNA "letters" are in that 2%, I bet you don't know...