The So-called "Tree of Life" has been debunked

[Immortal4life]

The more the better! What scares me about his type is the influence gained in setting the public agenda. Whether in politics, "the USA is a Christian Nation" insanity, or even slanting public education in favor of their religious ideology.

 

Lol, you also have some strange views about me, what my supposed "agenda" is, and about how powerful I supposedly am

[Immortal4life]

http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.html

 

This type of thinking is a road to disaster, a disaster waiting to happen.

 

What modern science has found is that altering genes, even if it appears beneficial intitially, is almost always disasterous for the survival of the organism or species in the long term. It's like how drug resistant bacteria, once introduced back into normal bacteria populations, can't compete and die out to the original non resistant bacteria. Even becoming resitant to anti-biotics was only good short term, but it was very negative in the long term.

[Marblehead]

If you are going to make claims and accusations like these, you will have to give specific examples.

 

Not until after you have done so. You started it, remember. You can't put the requirement on me and ignore the requirement yourself.

[Marblehead]

This type of thinking is a road to disaster, a disaster waiting to happen.

 

What modern science has found is that altering genes, even if it appears beneficial intitially, is almost always disasterous for the survival of the organism or species in the long term. It's like how drug resistant bacteria, once introduced back into normal bacteria populations, can't compete and die out to the original non resistant bacteria. Even becoming resitant to anti-biotics was only good short term, but it was very negative in the long term.

 

Yes. That is because the bacteria evolve to become immune to the anti-biotics. So man has to create new anti-biotics to fight the resistant bacteria - this is called the (man-caused) evolution of the anti-biotics.

 

What you said about genetic engineering is not true. There are many successful examples of that process.

 

There was a discussion on another board about a couple who bore a child for the purpose of being able to genetically treat an existing son who had a genetic disease. The procedure went perfect and the parents consider their second child a "Miracle Child". This procedure was done using stem cell research and knowledge.

[Encephalon]

LOL!

You have a strange view of things....

You also are very extreme, and very black and white yourself, yet project your own extremism on others....

 

That's your rebuttal, the best you can do? It's interesting that you've remained too frightened to share anything about your academic background or life history, your disengenuous lying excepted, preferring instead to hide behind a torrent of cut&paste pseudo-science. With that anemic rebuttal it's clear you're hiding something you're deeply ashamed of. My guess is an abysmal failure of academics, and you now spend your time railing about the imperfections of modern education without having the guts to actually check it out firsthand.

 

So far today you have tried to proselytize surgeons, scientists, botanists, and lowly social scientists like myself into accepting your religious fantasies. I'm looking forward to seeing where your next manifestation of delusion is going to take you. I'm sure that UFOs will figure prominently!

[Immortal4life]

That's your rebuttal, the best you can do? It's interesting that you've remained too frightened to share anything about your academic background or life history, your disengenuous lying excepted, preferring instead to hide behind a torrent of cut&paste pseudo-science. With that anemic rebuttal it's clear you're hiding something you're deeply ashamed of. My guess is an abysmal failure of academics, and you now spend your time railing about the imperfections of modern education without having the guts to actually check it out firsthand.

 

The conspiracy about me, my inner shame, and background in life keeps growing.

 

So far today you have tried to proselytize surgeons, scientists, botanists, and lowly social scientists like myself into accepting your religious fantasies. I'm looking forward to seeing where your next manifestation of delusion is going to take you. I'm sure that UFOs will figure prominently!

 

Not botanists!

 

Proselytizing to botanists is something you just don't do

 

But really....what religion or religious belief have I ever tried to convince anyone of? What exactly did I proselytize?

Edited May 9, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

Yes. That is because the bacteria evolve to become immune to the anti-biotics. So man has to create new anti-biotics to fight the resistant bacteria - this is called the (man-caused) evolution of the anti-biotics.

 

That is not correct. Even in cases where scientists isolated the bacteria in the lab, effectively removing selection, the parent bacteria still won out easily over the anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

 

In any case, it's still not evolution because a drug resistant bacteria is still a bacteria, not a new species.

 

 

What you said about genetic engineering is not true. There are many successful examples of that process.

 

There was a discussion on another board about a couple who bore a child for the purpose of being able to genetically treat an existing son who had a genetic disease. The procedure went perfect and the parents consider their second child a "Miracle Child". This procedure was done using stem cell research and knowledge.

 

Even short term benefits can turn out to be catastrophic hindrances long term

Edited May 9, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

 

 

In any case, it's still not evolution because a drug resistant bacteria is still a bacteria, not a new species.

 

 

 

 

 

This is where you are in error. Anytime a species adapts to a new environment, different food supply, by evolving survival mechanisms and even transformed physical structures, that is considered an evolutionary adaptation. Darwin's Finches are a perfect example of a bird adapting a different beak structure as a strategic adaptation.

 

BTW, to evolve means to change gradually over time.

 

 

http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_natural_selection.htm

[ralis]

The conspiracy about me, my inner shame, and background in life keeps growing.

 

 

 

Not botanists!

 

Proselytizing to botanists is something you just don't do

 

But really....what religion or religious belief have I ever tried to convince anyone of? What exactly did I proselytize?

 

If you would show your hand and stop believing you hold all the ace's, then we might have a dialogue. Instead, you have yet to answer any questions asked of you.

[Immortal4life]

This is where you are in error. Anytime a species adapts to a new environment, different food supply, by evolving survival mechanisms and even transformed physical structures, that is considered an evolutionary adaptation. Darwin's Finches are a perfect example of a bird adapting a different beak structure as a strategic adaptation.

 

What has been found out now is that Darwin's Finches in fact do not represent evolution, but rather, cyclical variations. As it was observed that some finches beaks change size as the environment changes, it was also found out that they eventually return to normal size.

 

We can't extrapolate that adapting beaks is an example of evolution.

 

Humans have known about breeding for centuries, but breeding over a million years doesn't equate to evolution being true. It's basically saying that "well in a million years anything can happen"

 

 

 

BTW, to evolve means to change gradually over time.

 

Yes, if we want to take the most basic dictionary use of the word. The problem is, Darwin didn't write a book called "Change over Time" he wrote a book called "The Origin of Species".

Edited May 9, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

What has been found out now is that Darwin's Finches in fact do not represent evolution, but rather, cyclical variations. As it was observed that some finches beaks change size as the environment changes, it was also found out that they eventually return to normal size.

 

We can't extrapolate that adapting beaks is an example of evolution.

 

Humans have known about breeding for centuries, but breeding over a million years doesn't equate to evolution being true. It's basically saying that "well in a million years anything can happen"

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, if we want to take the most basic dictionary use of the word. The problem is, Darwin didn't write a book called "Change over Time" he wrote a book called "The Origin of Species".

 

Dr. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture a religious think tank to promote intelligent design.

[Immortal4life]

He himself has stated that he is not a fundamentalist or a Christian.

[Immortal4life]

Galapagos Finches-

[ralis]

Galapagos Finches-

 

Another Discovery Institute ID advocate.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29

 

He has formulated; “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” and he even provides ten ready answers. I guess that is for those who have no capacity to think.

Edited May 9, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

It was not me who first brought the Discovery Institute into this discussion.

[ralis]

It was not me who first brought the Discovery Institute into this discussion.

 

They are fierce advocates of ID. The last two scientists are paid advocates of the Discovery Institute.

[Immortal4life]

Sorry that's not a theory. If its ET then where did they come from? It just puts everything back one step.

 

If things are designed then there still has to be a mechanism by which it happens.

 

If it's not a theory why does Richard Dawkins admit it could be a legitimate theory?

 

[Immortal4life]

They are fierce advocates of ID. The last two scientists are paid advocates of the Discovery Institute.

 

Does that make them wrong about everything?

[Marblehead]

 

Even short term benefits can turn out to be catastrophic hindrances long term

 

So you want to stop all scientific investigation because it might have some negative effect some where, some time down the road?

 

That just somehow sounds like ignorance to me. Yes, back to the Dark Ages. That will help, right?

 

Why do you speak so negatively about science? Did you fail your General Science class in high school and you are just trying to get even?

 

Science is man's investigation into the truth in order to find ways to improve man's condition on Earth. Why does this seem to be a negative in your mind?

 

And what would you have us do instead of trying to improve our condition on this planet? Where are we to look for hope that one day things will be better, if not for us at least for our children?

 

I don't see where all this negativity will take humanity. Reminds me of all the people who love to scream about "Dooms Day".

 

Do you drive a vehicle? It was the scientific types who gave essence to ideas such as vehicles and refridgeration. Surely you have a refridgerator?

 

Or is it your goal to discredit only those aspects of science that are in conflict with the Christian Bible. The Creation Myth? Would you rather see the Bible taught in the nations scool system and the removal of any science classes?

 

And lastly, what does all of this have to do with Eastern Philosophy and Religion? And why do you view Atheists so negatively? What threat do they present to you that you feel that you must belittle their beliefs?

 

Perhaps Steve F. is correct and threads such as these do not belong in the "Taoist Discussion" forum.

 

Maybe a new sub-forum could be created titled "In The Public Toilet" and threads such as this could be moved there.

[Marblehead]

From Wikipedia:

 

David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American educator and author of several books on mathematics. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a religious "think-tank" that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Though he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1] He has also written on philosophy and has written a variety of fictional works.

 

His PhD is in Philosophy!

 

Where is his knowledge base? Likely Christianity.

[Marblehead]

Does that make them wrong about everything?

 

As I have said before, there are a lot of good moral lessons in the Bible. (There are also a lot of bad ones.)

 

But to try to debunk Science based on made-up stories and myth is just a little too much in this day and age. We are no longer living in the Dark Ages.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that all of this fuss about ID is based in ignorance? They have read one book thoroughly - the Christian Bible. And that is the way it is for them, and apparently for you as well.

 

We are not talking about Taoism here. We have a thread in the wrong forum. I do now agree with Steve F in that this should be moved to a different forum.

[ralis]

The only reason I continued posting is that his ideology needs to be exposed for what it is. This is not an isolated incident and many like him that share the same ideology, will continue forcing their propaganda in many venues.

[ShaktiMama]

When I first saw this title a few days ago my thoughts were, "who is talking about the tree of life in the Garden of Eden?" My second thought, no, that is not a bummish topic of convo around here. Maybe he means the Tree of Life in Kaballah.

 

I looked deeper into your intro topic and I thought, oh crap...now we are gonna see a flame war of biblical proportions.

 

I was born into a religious fundie family and went to a fundie baptist bible college. Both Jerry Falwell and I are alumni so that kinda gives you insight into the philosophical underpinnings.

 

You can't con a con artist and you can't play a playah. This game is a very old one. And it comes down to ego stroking.

 

Bringing up a topic like this is like ...well... bringing up ID in a Harvard genetics class.

 

I vote for moving this convo to the pit because it is so inflammatory, involves belief systems all around which generally aren't logical, and does nothing to promote peaceful co-existence.

 

blessings,

Shaktimama

[Jetsun]

I think we should put all the "debunking evolutionary theory" threads in a sub-forum or perhaps Immortal4life would start his own forum. This is really tiresome. I, for one, have better things to do than debate with (un)Intelligent Design advocates.

Better yet, maybe he could post on the Kun Lun forum.

 

All the threads he starts are on the same subject so all he needs is one thread instead of creating new threads week in week out on the same issue. Which is basically just a technique of Goebells like propaganda to keep repeating the same message over and over in subtle different ways trying to get one fundamental point across.

[ralis]

I took the position of defending scientific inquiry and by no means meant that to be a polarized position. I have a BS in Ornamental Horticulture from one of the top research institutions in the U.S. and that does not make me a research scientist or that I have absolute knowledge of anything.

 

 

Science has created enormous benefit and conversely, has created many problems. Further, scientific inquiry never proceeds from any absolute conclusion or postulates absolute conclusions in regards to any phenomenon. Published results for peer review are always stated in approximations, never absolutes. That leaves open further research and debate.

 

All phenomena that are the subject of rigorous inquiry, are studied as part of a system. What has been presented by Immmortal4Life is contrary to any systematic approach. Obviously, he and others of like ideology know nothing of systems theory and only select certain minutia in an attempt to brainwash converts.

 

I agree with Blasto that real inquiry as to the nature of existence and the infinite possibilities of, are to be examined from the middle ground and away from any polarized position. One only needs to examine the history of the human race and see the horror that ideological polarization has caused.