By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What is your take on evolution/old age earth?

Final-Fan on 09 July 2010
sapphi_snake said:
highwaystar101 said:
sapphi_snake said:
@highwaystar101
Why do you even bother?

Because I have to. If people didn't bother debating, then nobody would progress.

Well your intentions are noble. Sadly these debates seem to always evolve into a series of monologues. Generally, in a debate  the side that comes up with the most compelling evidence and that argues most convincingly wins, but in this particular debate one of the sides (not gonna say which), has a problem admitting defeat, ultimately because they do not see compelling evidence as neither a necessity nor an obstacle to adopting their position in the first place.



TARGET DESTROYED



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 10 July 2010

@Final-Fan

WTF?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Final-Fan on 10 July 2010
sapphi_snake said:
@Final-Fan
WTF?

lol, in other words, I think your post was incisive. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

highwaystar101 on 11 July 2010
sapphi_snake said:
highwaystar101 said:
sapphi_snake said:

@highwaystar101

Why do you even bother?

Because I have to. If people didn't bother debating, then nobody would progress.


Well your intentions are noble. Sadly these debates seem to always evolve into a series of monologues. Generally, in a debate  the side that comes up with the most compelling evidence and that argues most convincingly wins, but in this particular debate one of the sides (not gonna say which), has a problem admitting defeat, ultimately because they do not see compelling evidence as neither a necessity nor an obstacle to adopting their position in the first place.

Yeah, sorry about the extended monologues. Usually to debate this subject it requires the use of a lot of information, sometimes I feel as though I can only explain things with walls of text, which is unfortunate.

All I can hope is that the people I was replying to read my entire reply to them. If they did, then they haven't replied, which is very annoying. Especially as I got accused of intellectual dishonesty, which is exactly what a lot of the creationists have shown.

But if they haven't read the posts, then I guess it just shows which side is willing to put in the footwork to find out the real situation. Or just refuse to read it.

 

Maybe I should just stop debating in these threads. Meh.



Scoobes on 14 July 2010
Smidlee said:

I agree you should read some older evolution books and see just how many failed prediction evolution has made thoughout the years. I doubt Darwin would even recognize his own theory (unlike Issac Newton.) This is the opposite of other science fields , like for engineering. For example books on steam engines 100 years ago maybe out of date because of newer technology yet everything in those old books are still true. The same with books about vaccuum tubes. Trying to nail down evolution is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. That's because evolution is based more on human opinion than hardcore facts. (not stating evolution does not contain any facts but those facts are not what is being questioned)


That's flawed. Engineering is the application of science. Structures, steam engines & vaccum tubes are all applications derived from our understanding of physics and the physical world. Chemical engineering is the application of chemistry for drug development.

In the same way, what we have learnt from the theory of evolution has been sucessfully applied in the fields of genetic, protein and biochemical engineering. For instance, in my own work I apply knowledge derived from the theory of evolution to mutate a protein in bacterial cells, which will then go on to be used in drug development. A new and efficient system for this will arise in the furture, but the current system and knowledge from books and journals will always work.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Smidlee on 14 July 2010

drug development does not depends on one's faith in ToE. Drugs have to go though tests before they are release to the public.



The Ghost of RubangB on 14 July 2010

Everything evolves, including science and religion.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Scoobes on 15 July 2010
Smidlee said:

drug development does not depends on one's faith in ToE. Drugs have to go though tests before they are release to the public

We're in an age of biochemical drugs. Protein based drugs are being designed and "grown" based on information derived from the theory of evolution. It's not faith in the theory of evolution that gets those drugs developed, but hard evidence based data derived from the theory of evolution.

And your analogy is yet again flawed. Did you read my previous post? Engineering is the application of science: Everything needs to be tested. A steam engine (or any engine) needs to be tested when one is designed and built to ensure it is stable and does explode. Yet the development is based on the theories and laws of physics. In drug development, the drugs are also tested to ensure safety, but they are developed based on theories and data from biology and chemistry. One of those theories is evolution.

You can't deny this as there are peer reviewed papers on the topic and it is essentially part of the work I've spent the last 3 yrs conducting.




Get your Portable ID!

Smidlee on 15 July 2010
Scoobes said:
Smidlee said:

drug development does not depends on one's faith in ToE. Drugs have to go though tests before they are release to the public

We're in an age of biochemical drugs. Protein based drugs are being  designed and "grown" based on information derived from the theory of evolution.

Interesting. It the same with "evolutionary programming" is just another name with "Trial and error"programming.  Computers are faster at trial and error than making random changes manually like the Wright Brothers did when they test their wing shapes.

 



Scoobes on 15 July 2010
Smidlee said:
Scoobes said:
Smidlee said:

drug development does not depends on one's faith in ToE. Drugs have to go though tests before they are release to the public

We're in an age of biochemical drugs. Protein based drugs are being  designed and "grown" based on information derived from the theory of evolution.

Interesting. It the same with "evolutionary programming" is just another name with "Trial and error"programming.  Computers are faster at trial and error than making random changes manually like the Wright Brothers did when they test their wing shapes.

 

I'm missing your point here. How exactly are you comparing protein engineering to computer programming?

And mutations or "changes" in biological science/protein engineering can be somewhat random via directed evolution, or can be based on a rational design approach, and some of the techniques in rational design are directly related to the theory of evolution. By studying how proteins evolved we can determine methods and rationales for creating new and novel protein molecules.




Get your Portable ID!