Well,I was thinking that the formula was at least two blackboards...Well hell.
I thought this thread was going to say that 6% of scientists think the other 94% suck ass....
They're probably too tactful to say so out loud.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well,I was thinking that the formula was at least two blackboards...Well hell.
I thought this thread was going to say that 6% of scientists think the other 94% suck ass....
They're probably too tactful to say so out loud.
What do you think Ernst Chain, would have said if he lived a few years longer and "observed" the fact that microbes "evolve" and develop immunity to penicillin? Wow, it's just too bad. Of course, when people are indoctrinated into mysticism at a very early age, many times, they simply can't over come that indoctrination. No matter how much evidence, they will refuse to see it.
You said: Gregor Mendel, father of modern biology, actually worked from findings that directly contradicted Darwin's theories.
That is a totally idiotic thing to say. Darwin didn't know how traits were passed from generation to generation. So he guessed. That's why it's called a "theory". Mendel's work filled in the gaps of Darwin's work. But that happened by scientists years later who brought their work together. Mendel's work complimented Darwin's work, not disproved it.
I hope that who ever you "educated" doesn't have your address because they would want their money back.
6% of Scientists are Republicans.
How unsurprising
YouTube - 6% Of Scientist Are Republicans
Further stats:
55% Democrat
6% Republican
39% Independent
52% Liberal
14% Very Liberal
9% Conservative
Truth is, Chain and the others were already aware of adaptation. Bacteria aren't doing anything that was new and strange to them. They also aren't doing anything that constitutes proof of evolution between species, because tuberculosis bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria. They didn't become a different species.
-----Adaptation - what is it? Evolution. Natural selection.
Since bacteria are asexual, how do you know that they aren't a "new species"?
Evolutionary changes are small changes that happen over such a long period of time, the creatures diverge.
We can plainly see that today. Tiger and Lion make "Liger", Horse and donkey make mule.
Of course, they have diverged so much, the chromosomes no longer line up so you get defects like "sterility" or "unchecked growth". We know from fossil records and genetics exactly when these creatures "split". Look at the huge differences between the dog and the wolf. Eventually, they will drift so far apart, they will have the same problems as large cats and equines.
First, "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess".
---------But it wasn't "wild-assed guess". He could see the evolutionary changes in the different creatures at the Galapagos Islands.
As to the exact method of that change, he was wrong, but his guess was based on visual observation. And a very good guess it was.
Second, Mendel's work didn't "fill in the gaps of Darwin's work", nor did it "complement" it, nor was it "brought together" with it. It directly contradicted it.
-----------Only the method, not the theory itself.
Mendel's data - because he was a real, working scientist, not a hack theorist dreaming up guesses - led him to conclude that heredity involved the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism's traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.
-----------From one generation to the next. Look at dogs. You breed two dogs together that are a little smaller. Every generation, you breed the two smallest dogs together. You may not see a change from generation to generation, but over many generations, you end up with Chihuahua. We have only been doing that for a hundred thousand years, but the same process happened between lions and tigers for millions of years and look at the result.
Darwin's view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produced "gemmules" that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called "pangenesis". The advantage of Darwin's view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage was that it was bullshit.
-----------That is a very good description of Darwin's theory, not about evolution per se, but how characteristics were passes. Almost like paint. A darker and lighter shade will always make one right in the middle. That is where Mendel proved him wrong.
By the 1930s, however, the evidence had corroborated Mendelian genetics. Darwinists abandoned "pangenesis" and subsumed Mendelism in a "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that still dominates evolutionary biology. I guess plagiarism is what you call "bringing their work together", huh?
----------Because they truly were brought together. Now we can trace species movement though genetics and fossils. We know when species separated from a common ancestor.
If Darwinism contributed nothing to the origin of genetics and biology, how can it now be at its core?
------------That is your "mule headed" assumption. The theory of Evolution is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
-------------Some of what you talked was science. But twisted. You know that at your core are "mystical beliefs". It's as clear as the nose that "evolved" onto your face.
I hate polls but I just got a pew poll call...computer generated questions...on the last question before I can answer they fucking hung up...know why? Because they didn't like my answers...didn't fit the outcome they were looking for. Polls are all BS
Someone may already have said what I'm going to say. I'd might have to read a whole bunch of posts in this thread to know and I'm not going to do that. But:
It is very possible that there is a "left" bias among scientists.
I wish this was the other message board I frequent most so you would be familiar with some of my past statements. But I have been involved in the world of science for many years. And I've said many times that there is a "left" philosophical bias among the overwhelming majority of scientists. And I'm not talking about the bias being "justified" by some kind of objective process.
I'm talking about stuff like being a biologist and talking to other biologists about issues such as whether or not shrimpers should be forced to use Turtle Excluder devices or whether or not a rancher should've been reamed by the Federal government for shooting a bear that first threatened his wildlife then threatened his life. In my opinion, there is a very palpable environmentalist bias among scientists when it comes to scientists who deal with that. I think there is also a strong egalitarian bias among social scientists. Ect. ect.
Of course I'm just me. You can believe it or not. But I think that, if you think that a poll like that is some kind of "validation" of liberal or Democratic Party political positions, you are missing the very real possibility that we have a problem with philosophical bias among scientists.
wow, you dont know SOOOO muchI was right. You believe evolution, the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is a "lie". You say you prepare papers for "scientific journals" and believe evolution is a lie? FOFLOL.
That is too, too funny. Really.
So, do these "witches" you know have, uh, "Powers"? Can they make "things happen"? Do they have names like "Samantha" and "Endora"?
Philosophy in science? Not sure what that means. It's "science".
You quote "Terry Pratchett"? Cool. You "MythAppropriated his words".
I said:
Peer Review: Usually, the review is in a two tier process. The first being their own board of review. The second being an outside board of review. They even choose scientists from other countries to try to remove "cultural bias".
You said:
"You know nothing about peer review, and just take my word for that, because I have no intention of saying anything concrete about it."
Which of course, isn't what I said.
Put the Kool-aid away and watch the science channel. Robert Tilton and Rod Parsley will still be there when you get back.
I know a little. Which is more than some.
Let's cut to the chase.
ID does not belong in a science room. It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.
Let's cut to the chase.
ID does not belong in a science room. It belongs in a humanties, religion, or philosopy class.
Yes, let's cut to the chase.
Same for evolution.
while i disagree with them doing thisTexas's mandatory Bible Class
Link
Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.
Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). You cant effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this contentious fight. As long as the teachers avoid engaging in religious indoctrination, these classes should benefit everyone.
Thats one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers havent been trained to teach such an explosive topic, and Texas didnt provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will devolve into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-allsand dozens of inevitable lawsuits will follow.
Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?
Texas's mandatory Bible Class
Link
Excerpt:
As of this school year, all Texas public schools will be required to offer a course on the Bible. Apparently, there are quite a few politicians and school board members in Texas who are either
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or
2) actively trying to subvert it.
Nonsense, said William Mattox Jr.(R-Handjob). You cant effectively explore American history, or even pop culture, without knowing the stories, themes, and words of the Bible. Kudos to the Texas Board of Education for not skirting
this contentious fight. As long as the teachers avoid engaging in religious indoctrination, these classes should benefit everyone.
Thats one of the problems with the law, said Jeremy Burchard in The UT Daily Texan. Teachers havent been trained to teach such an explosive topic, and Texas didnt provide funding to instruct them. That means biblical literacy classes will devolve into legally questionable, polarizing free-for-allsand dozens of inevitable lawsuits will follow.
Why does Texas wage a constant war on science, logic and common sense?