"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

You know Newton was also an alchemist? That's the thing about people who change the world. They're usually batsh*t insane.

A modern type of alchemy in biology is turning one species into another by blind, undirected means. Sheer folly.

Beruthiel

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't know blue font was a challenge to atheism

It's not.

Everyone knows that it's black, with a hint of purple running through it.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't know blue font was a challenge to atheism

Well green ink is a challenge to sloppy historical writing so....

coffee_cake

Beruthiel wrote: »

It's not.

Everyone knows that it's black, with a hint of purple running through it.

A challenge?

kiffer

28064212 wrote: »

*Citation needed

In fairness I can imagine him saying it along with "Cats have magical powers".
It doesn't matter who said what, it only matters what you can prove.

If some one proves a mathematical theorem it doesn't matter to maths if they are a jerk or the nicest person in the world... they'd still be right.
Similarly someone can be right about a hundred things and wrong about a hundred other things.
The fact that they have been right or wrong before doesn't make them right or wrong now.

28064212

kiffer wrote: »

In fairness I can imagine him saying it along with "Cats have magical powers".
It doesn't matter who said what, it only matters what you can prove.

Oh I know that, but the OP's seemingly sole reason for believing the initial premise is based on who said it. If Newton didn't say it, then the whole argument for the OP falls over, without even needing to get into the numerous fallacies contained within the statement.

And given the only "original" source I can find that claims Newton said it is a creationist book written by a couple who believe the sun revolves round the earth, I think the claim is doubtful at best

EDIT: Dammit robin, now you subscribed me to this thread *Unfollows*

robindch

There we go. Banished.

Sarky

mickrock wrote: »

A modern type of alchemy in biology is turning one species into another by blind, undirected means. Sheer folly.

You haven't bothered your arse to read up on biology or evolution like we recommended, have you? Why are you so happy to remain ignorant?

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

Why are you so happy to remain ignorant?

I've heard it's bliss.

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

There we go. Banished.

:eek::eek:

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

You haven't bothered your arse to read up on biology or evolution like we recommended, have you? Why are you so happy to remain ignorant?

You're getting worked up because, deep down, you know what I said might be true.

Sarky

No, I'm getting slightly bemused because, after three microbiology degrees and a couple of jobs as a researcher on bacteria and how they've evolved, I know what utter horsesh*t you're trying to peddle.

Seriously, please read a book or two on biology or evolution. It'll answer a lot of the questions you're too afraid to ask.

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

No, I'm getting slightly bemused because, after three microbiology degrees and a couple of jobs as a researcher on bacteria and how they've evolved

Apparently they've evolved into whales and horses. That's what I've heard.

Is it true?

Sarky

Not in one go. That would be a very f*cking stupid thing to believe, and you're not very f*cking stupid, are you? Otherwise yes, all the evidence in the world points to that being what happened. Perhaps you could read up on it so you don't make the same mistake again? I can recommend a couple of books for you...

sephir0th

mickrock wrote: »

Apparently they've evolved into whales and horses. That's what I've heard.

Is it true?

Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. It's painful.

Turtwig

Isaac's Newton's greatest achievement in his own eyes was lifelong celibacy. Just saying . . .

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

yes, all the evidence in the world points to that being what happened.

Sure it does.

There's no harm in believing in it if it makes you happy.

Sarky

If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd be happy to tear it apart for you. Or you could ask oldrnwisr, he's extremely well-read on the topic. Why not PM him, if you're too embarrassed to ask your questions in front of a crowd? You'll find him friendly and helpful, and you'll improve your knowledge on one of the most interesting processes in the universe.

Edit: Actually, I just got asked to do some comparative genomics for one of the lecturers here, so if you're eager to get answers, you'd probably be better off PMing oldrnwisr.

Sycopat

mickrock wrote: »

Apparently they've evolved into whales and horses. That's what I've heard.

Is it true?

That question belies one of two things.

A fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution actually is.

or

A gross oversimplification of a very complex question.

The weird thing is your choice of mammals. Given the evolutionary relationship between horses and whales I imagine someones tried to explain it to you before?

Sarky

Ooh, sycopat's a good one to ask too, he has all the qualifications I do, and a PhD to boot! Seriously, there are loads of very knowledgeable people here, if you have any interest in learning about evolution and how it works, this forum is a really good place to hang around. You'll learn so much!

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

You're getting worked up because, deep down, you know what I said might be true.

As Sarky points out, that's pretty unlikely given that his day job involves watching evolution happen in front of him.

You are aware that it's possible to see this happen, aren't you?

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

and you'll improve your knowledge on one of the most interesting processes in the universe.

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

And what's the alternative? It mustn't be very silly at all...

seamus

mickrock wrote: »

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

So what's your explanation for it?

Evolution occurs. That's a given fact. It can be seen occurring in the lab and there's an enormous fossil record providing fairly comprehensive documentation of the process over hundreds of millions of years.

So if the Darwinian theory doesn't explain evolution, how do you explain evolution?

Bannasidhe

Ziphius wrote: »

And what's the alternative? It mustn't be very silly at all...

Well, an omnipotent creator who always existed even though nothing can just come into existence made a universe and on one tiny planet in this vast universe the creator made trees and water and bumble bees and puppies and sugar and spice and air and..well...everything really. Then he (and it is a 'he') took some dirt and he fashioned that dirt into a mini me and then he took out one of Mini Me's ribs and made a Mrs Notquite Mini Me and then there was the bruhaha about the apple...

Perfectly sound theory.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

It's wishful thinking [...]

You should publish your scientific paper overturning the most well-supported Theory in biology, have it peer-reviewed + published, and then claim your Nobel Prize.

It's the least you could do!

Sarky

It would revolutionise medicine, particularly in the realm of disease control, seeing as the last few decades of research and development in that area are based on evolutionary models, like Staphylococcus aureus evolving into MRSA and all those other "superbugs" as the media like to call them. Mickrock! There's no telling how many lives you could save by providing a better model for medical science to work off! You'll be a hero, all you have to do is show us a better way to explain the diversity of life on this planet for the last couple of billion years!


... mickrock? Hello? Where's your alternative? Don't you want to revolutionise science and save countless lives?

Sycopat

Sarky wrote: »

Ooh, sycopat's a good one to ask too, he has all the qualifications I do, and a PhD to boot! Seriously, there are loads of very knowledgeable people here, if you have any interest in learning about evolution and how it works, this forum is a really good place to hang around. You'll learn so much!

Not yet I don't! And it takes me forever to write a post/reply (case in point, this whole short post will likely take me 45 minutes.) so I'm definitely not the best for a quick response.

mickrock wrote: »

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

In this post you've shown me you have no wish or interest in debating the merits of the thoery of evolution, or it's actual failings.

Which makes me sad because one of my favourite things about the origin of species is how darwin argues so well for evolution based entirely on observations made without the benefit of so many things many modern biologists take for granted. Things like the structure of DNA, any concept of modern genetics, molecular biology, sequencing technologies and computational biology. It's truly eye opening to be able to see both how far we've come in our ability to make new and better observations, and how relevant much of his reasoning still is.

When used to understand the world, evolution can add whole new depths of understanding of the natural world and the rather fascinating and surprising relationships it contains.

By all means though you can call the best explanation for the evidence gathered over the last 150ish years 'wishful thinking' if you like. What you can't expect is for me to respect your biased, lazy, groundless opinion. At all.

I'm off for a dinosaur meat sandwich.

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

It would revolutionise medicine, particularly in the realm of disease control, seeing as the last few decades of research and development in that area are based on evolutionary models, like Staphylococcus aureus evolving into MRSA and all those other "superbugs" as the media like to call them.

Are you using a bacteria that develops a resistance to antibiotics as evidence for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of life by Darwinian means?

That's some extrapolation!

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

Are you using a bacteria that develops a resistance to antibiotics as evidence for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of life by Darwinian means?

That's some extrapolation!

But if bacteria aren't evolving resistance surely you must tell us what is going on? C'mon mickrock this could cost lives!