Biologist Kenneth Miller, Brown Unive...

Biologist Kenneth Miller, Brown University

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1 May 15, 2011
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments,'orphaned' genes,'junk' DNA, and so many… pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design." — Biologist Kenneth Miller, Brown University (1994).


It makes sense to me that it has never dawned on Catholic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller that a theory of devolution might be correct.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/devolution
Dan

Silver City, NM

#2 May 15, 2011
Whether or not perfection can be achieved is not the point. The quest for perfection is it's own reward.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#3 May 15, 2011
Shubee wrote:
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments,'orphaned' genes,'junk' DNA, and so many… pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design." — Biologist Kenneth Miller, Brown University (1994).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =u7UrUuakwPIXX
It makes sense to me that it has never dawned on Catholic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller that a theory of devolution might be correct.
It makes sense to me that Miller would have no reason to consider a "theory of devolution" to be correct, as it fails to explain what is observe.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#4 May 15, 2011
Shubee wrote:
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments,'orphaned' genes,'junk' DNA, and so many… pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design." — Biologist Kenneth Miller, Brown University (1994).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =u7UrUuakwPIXX
It makes sense to me that it has never dawned on Catholic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller that a theory of devolution might be correct.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/devolution
If he knew you, it would surely dawn on him that you are full of shít.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Level 1

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#5 May 16, 2011
Shubee wrote:
It makes sense to me that it has never dawned on Catholic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller that a theory of devolution might be correct.
It never occurred to him because "devolution" is crack-pot nonsense just s inconsistent with reality as "flat earth theory" and "hydroplate theory".
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6 May 19, 2011
nothingUnreal wrote:
It never occurred to him because "devolution" is crack-pot nonsense
Sure, if you start with the assumption that there is no God. But denying the unprovable is a religious belief.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#7 May 19, 2011
Shubee wrote:
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments,'orphaned' genes,'junk' DNA, and so many… pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design." — Biologist Kenneth Miller, Brown University (1994).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =u7UrUuakwPIXX
It makes sense to me that it has never dawned on Catholic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller that a theory of devolution might be correct.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/devolution

The theory of devolution (falsely so called) is not a theory, not a hypothesis, not a valid scientific idea. Why? Because it is exactly like the theory of degravity, it is opposite to the observed evidence.

Game
Set
Match
WIMBLEDON!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#8 May 19, 2011
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Sure, if you start with the assumption that there is no God. But denying the unprovable is a religious belief.

Regardless of the assumption of God or not degravity is cracked pot nonsense.

Make up something new. You are getting boring.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#9 May 20, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
It makes sense to me that Miller would have no reason to consider a "theory of devolution" to be correct, as it fails to explain what is observe.
I agree that evolutionists are completely disinterested in applying logic to an inescapably true and universal principle. I call their conflict with true science as not believing in modus ponens.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#10 May 20, 2011
It makes sense to me that Miller would have no reason to consider a "theory of devolution" to be correct, as it fails to explain what is observed.
Shubee wrote:
I agree that evolutionists are completely disinterested in applying logic to an inescapably true and universal principle.
As I never claimed that biologists (such as Miller) were disinterested in applying logic to anything, how could you be "agreeing" to what I said?

And exactly what is "true" or "universal" about your claimed "principle"? Where exactly is the evidence for it?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11 May 21, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
It makes sense to me that Miller would have no reason to consider a "theory of devolution" to be correct, as it fails to explain what is observed.
As I never claimed that biologists (such as Miller) were disinterested in applying logic to anything, how could you be "agreeing" to what I said?
Please understand that you have been duped by a nonscientific philosophy. As you see the world, an elaborate scientific construct might not be a theory one day, and then might qualify as a valid scientific theory the very next day. That sounds remarkably stupid to me. Just because an elaborate scientific construct can't be tested immediately, it doesn't mean that it can't be tested eventually.
Drew Smith wrote:
And exactly what is "true" or "universal" about your claimed "principle"?
Many things are true about Sanford's universal principle. One truism associated with it is that evolutionists are too limited in their thinking to recognize it as a true, universally applicable principle.
Drew Smith wrote:
Where exactly is the evidence for it?
The evidence is easily demonstrable by any middle school science student. Find any such youngster and he or she should be able to devise an experiment to demonstrate the principle for you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12 May 21, 2011
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Please understand that you have been duped by a nonscientific philosophy.

You mean he started to believe your theory of degravity? I must hav missed that.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> As you see the world, an elaborate scientific construct might not be a theory one day, and then might qualify as a valid scientific theory the very next day. That sounds remarkably stupid to me.

Well, you said it so that does stand to reason.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Just because an elaborate scientific construct can't be tested immediately, it doesn't mean that it can't be tested eventually.

True, but if the construct does not explain observed reality it is not even a valid hypothesis. You do not even have a valid hypothesis per the scientific method and accepted scientific definitions.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Many things are true about Sanford's universal principle.

In fact not so. Sanford perhaps describes reality in another universe, but not this one.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> One truism associated with it is that evolutionists are too limited in their thinking to recognize it as a true, universally applicable principle.

When you can't prove something you resort to insults.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> The evidence is easily demonstrable by any middle school science student. Find any such youngster and he or she should be able to devise an experiment to demonstrate the principle for you.

Again, a hand wave rather than any real evidence.

I call Dodge.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#13 May 21, 2011
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I agree that evolutionists are completely disinterested in applying logic to an inescapably true and universal principle. I call their conflict with true science as not believing in modus ponens.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Let me summarize what you said:

Illogic attacks near devolution. A nostalgia truncates devolution against a largest poison. Devolution dries the sun. A poetic voltage bares devolution. Devolution equips the closer joke with the razor. How does a controller bundle the doomed hello?

Now let me summarize the summarize the summary:
you dumped a load of random crap and expect to be taken seriously.

If the best definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result then you are the craziest person in history.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#14 May 21, 2011
Shubee wrote:
Please understand that you have been duped by a nonscientific philosophy.
Please understand that evolution is part and parcel of biological science, and therefore, is not a "nonscientific philosophy".
Shubee wrote:
As you see the world, an elaborate scientific construct might not be a theory one day, and then might qualify as a valid scientific theory the very next day. That sounds remarkably stupid to me.
That whole concept of "evidence" gets right past you, does it?
Shubee wrote:
Just because an elaborate scientific construct can't be tested immediately, it doesn't mean that it can't be tested eventually.
Who here has claimed otherwise? But that also doesn't mean that *all* "elaborate constructs" are necessarily scientific, nor does it mean that *all* "elaborate constructs" can ever be tested.
Shubee wrote:
Many things are true about Sanford's universal principle. One truism associated with it is that evolutionists are too limited in their thinking to recognize it as a true, universally applicable principle.
Now you're engaged in circular reasoning. It is circular reasoning to claim that a principle is "true" and "universal" on the basis that others fail to recognize it as "true" and "universal".
Shubee wrote:
The evidence is easily demonstrable by any middle school science student.
Then you should have no problem in doing so here. Have at it.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#15 May 21, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
Please understand that evolution is part and parcel of biological science, and therefore, is not a "nonscientific philosophy".
Biology functions very nicely without the fantasy that oak trees can transform into humans in slow, sure steps.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16 May 21, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
That whole concept of "evidence" gets right past you, does it?
I don't buy the claim of evidence for oak tree to human transformations as easily as you do.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17 May 21, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
Now you're engaged in circular reasoning. It is circular reasoning to claim that a principle is "true" and "universal" on the basis that others fail to recognize it as "true" and "universal".
That whole concept of "reading comprehension" gets right past you, doesn't it?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#18 May 21, 2011
Drew Smith wrote:
Then you should have no problem in doing so here. Have at it.
I'll take that as an admission that you're incapable of doing a middle school science experiment.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#19 May 21, 2011
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I don't buy the claim of evidence for oak tree to human transformations as easily as you do.

No scientific
No comment

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#20 May 21, 2011
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Biology functions very nicely without the fantasy that oak trees can transform into humans in slow, sure steps.

No science
No comment

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min emrenil 154,706
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 36 min Aura Mytha 216,739
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 58 min One way or another 48,580
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 18 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) Mon _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web