81
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Is evolution even science, or just gross intellectual dishonesty?
« on: 26/03/2017 04:53:32 »I agree with the premises of natural selection. Selection is not dependent on the mechanism behind the changes. Selection comes in after the fact of change, and is more based on environmental potentials, which can be outside and/or inside. Where I differ is I have concluded that the source of change t is not random, but is influenced by the water, which has its own selection process.OK, but your idea has absolutely no evidence associated with it. And contemporary evolutionary theory has scads of evidence, many of which is closely tied to random changes to DNA. One can make assumptions about how many changes will randomly show up in a section of DNA and use this as a clock to time genetic change. One can then compare this to the fossil record. There are some really good matches! That's evidence.
Quote
The modern theory of evolution is closely tied to its own theory of change, even though selection process is not change dependent. Just because I don't accept the current theory of change, does not mean I also don't agree with selection.Just because you cherry-pick some scientific results doesn't mean that you are being scientific. You are simply choosing results to believe in while ignoring the evidence and methods of gathering evidence.
Quote
I invented a process, based on chemistry, which I had to run. I was shadowed by a statistician who was a bright math major, but not a chemist. He saw more probability and random than I did, so he needed a larger black box. Nothing personal, just different areas of study and expertise.This story does not make you look good. You came up with something that you could not adequately prove was safe to use and rather than establish its safety, you merely took the position that it was safe and harbored a grudge against the people you could not convince.
Quote
Water and life is not my pet theory,No, it really is. You ascribe a magic property to water that it actually selects DNA mutations. You have no mechanism. You have no evidence.
Quote
but rather it is an area of frontier science, where I can use less subjective odds.The irony is that you are being entirely subjective; without evidence, your idea is not capable of being applied or even meaningfully assessed as science. Where there are tons of details in the actual biological science of evolution and molecular genetics, you have no details, just a vague hope.
Quote
If we start with a yeast cell and remove all the water, nothing works. We still have all the organics, as portrayed in text books, which are chemically the same, yet nothing is working in terms of any aspect of life, right down to enzymes or chemicals and ions on enzymes. The odds are 100% that nothing associated with life will appear if we remove the water from the yeast cells. This is a rational observation lead to a sound foundation premise with probability equal to 1.0.It is also a profoundly stupid observation. Here is its equivalent: if we heat yeast up to 10,000 degrees Celsius, nothing works, therefore we have a rational foundation with probability 1 that cold is the foundation of selection.
Quote
The status quo is not about intellectual dishonesty, as much as the reaction is an artifact of the subjectivity of statistics. The less you know the more you can think you know. The black box helps by limiting what you think you need to know. This can be addictive since it feeds on emotions. If you open the black box, now you can know too much, which can make some realize, how little they know.That is so incredibly insulting to all the people that actually do work. Your posts are disgusting.