Cloned Human?

[scott_harpell]

no doubt. and the creeds of calcedon (crete?) etc. were created merely to discredit the heretic practices of the aryans. this is the begining of a long line of added dogma to a nearly completely dogma-less spiritual way of being (notice i didn't say religion). I admire the way Jesus lived his life, but I struggle to affiliate myself with people who profess to be following the same man. Quie the cross-fire i am in i would say!

[Stonehead]

It is as if science is a religion with scientists as its priests.

 

doesn't this sound an afwul lot like the catholic church before they instituted the vernacular? Give the church your money and we will progress the faith. You know nothing, but trust us... we'll save you. Weird correlation. If science is taken to a 'religion' level. It does cease to be science no?

 

As I understand it, yeah, the impetus for the Reformation. Translate the bible into German, a movement divesting the clergy (who practiced in the language of Latin) of their concentrated power.

 

So, is this a bellwether of what might occur with science? A backlash? Or reformation? To some extent, the conservatives of the world whether Al Qaida fundamentalists or our own brand of fundamentalism a la Ashcroft are leading the charge against the social disruption of technological advance.

[scott_harpell]

and arguably vice-versa

[Stonehead]

There is the idea that we are empty vessels. We fill ourselves with the thoughts of others, an endless progression of thought. Sometimes it gets muddled. Other times you can feel the clarity of thought, like a diamond. The dead do speak. In books. It is like eating. The process of assimilation. I read someone thoughts like maybe something from Cicero or Virgil and even though my context is different, something of that time and era is propagated to me.

 

There is a perennial philosophy. Aldous Huxley talked about it. Others too.

[Dave_Schuldt]

That's right Paul. Never refute anything. Just find some pictures or gremelins to do you bidding ad nauseum.

 

Well said, scott

[jon]

For a discipline priding itself on empiricism, I would think that the tolerance would have a slightly lower threshold. Also, just because someone else's transgressions are worse, does not make them any less succeptable to scrutiny. Also, inverstors are not charged with the seeking of truth in an attempt to understand the world and to also enhance/save lives.

 

Scott my suggestion to you is never use any drugs if you get sick. Better stop taking vitamins too because scientists found out they are good for you. You better stop using shampoo and soap too because scientists develop those and make sure they don't harm your body.

 

Your religion arguement is completely assnine. Catholic priests fuck young boys. Scientists lie because they are desperate for dwindling grant money. Bush wants to go to Mars, he wants to do this and that, and guess who's budget is getting reduced because of it? NIH. Expect to see more lying.

[whirlwind]

dam fellas this is a long winded thread. my only problem with science is that its way to inconsitant with it self, given that there have been positive advances for instace through empirical means we know that if we touch fire we get burnt, if we sit in a snow bank for a while we will eventualy frez, i guess my only point is natures laws are set, but theories of evolution and the like are kinda disturbing, for instance natuarl selection on a macro level is a joke, if you going to belive in the big bang you might as well belive the world was created in 8 days because nothing then bang the universe is more unsettleing than beliveing that someone or something created the universe, due to causal relations.

[Doctorb]

dam fellas this is a long winded thread. my only problem with science is that its way to inconsitant with it self, given that there have been positive advances for instace through empirical means we know that if we touch fire we get burnt, if we sit in a snow bank for a while we will eventualy frez, i guess my only point is natures laws are set, but theories of evolution and the like are kinda disturbing, for instance natuarl selection on a macro level is a joke, if you going to belive in the big bang you might as well belive the world was created in 8 days because nothing then bang the universe is more unsettleing than beliveing that someone or something created the universe, due to causal relations.

 

Between your atrocious spelling and your incoherency, it is difficult to extract meaning from your post...

 

Natures laws are not set. Human laws that explain observations and allow us to make successful predictions are "set" until an observation is made that forces the law to be reevaluated or rejected, or a better law is developed, one that makes more accurate predictions.

 

As far as the Big Bang theory is concerned, it is based on observations of the physical universe, and makes valid predictions. Creation mythologies are fiction, and don't predict shit.

 

Examples of natural selection on a macroscopic level:

Mass extinction at the end of the cretaceous period due to asteriod impact 65 mya.

Spanish Flu pandemic, 1918

AIDS pandemic 1940(?)-present

SARS

 

Another of my rants, given to a former student during his freshman biology class:

 

1. What is your personal opinion of the evolution vs. creation debate in

public schools?

 

There is no debate. Proponents of "Christian creation mythology"

(see 3B below) have put forth that this is a debatable issue, but it is not.

Science is a system for explaining and predicting observed natural

phenomena. Religion is a belief system based on a mythology. Each serves

its own purpose. Would you use a religious text to determine the melting

point of an aluminum alloy, or the chemical formula for trinitrotoluene, or

the crystal structure of molybdenum? Would you use a physics book to

determine which deity to worship on the first full moon after the autumnal

equinox, and what sacrifice is appropriate, and which prayers to chant?

 

2. Should evolution be taught in public schools? Why?

 

If science is to be taught in public school, then evolution needs to

be taught. The modern theory of evolution is THE most important

foundational theory that the science of biology has ever put forth.

Teaching biology without teaching the modern theory of evolution is not

teaching biology. Replacing the modern theory of evolution with Christian

creation mythology is an insult, and would result in a nation of ignoramuses

mocked and ridiculed by the entirety of the enlightened world.

 

3. Should creationism be taught in public schools? Why?

 

Not as a substitute for the modern theory of evolution.

 

A) Public schools are funded by tax dollars. The U.S. constitution

explicitly separates church and state, and teaching Christian creation

mythology would violate this tenet.

 

B) Who's "creationism" would we teach? Christianity? Native American?

Satanism? Islamic? Buddhist? Norse? Roman? Pagan? Wiccan? Last time I

checked, this is not a monotheistic country, yet "creationism" has come to

mean, within the context of this discussion, "Christian Creation Mythology".

"Creationists" or "Creation Scientists" (a term that is laughable in its

inherent contradictions) support only their own explanations for our

existence, and furiously reject any other, be it "evolution" or "we live on

the back of a giant turtle". They only see the world one way, the way that

they have been trained to see it, and reject any evidence that invalidates

their beliefs.

 

C) Christian creation mythology is a mythology. Mythology, though

often a source of entertainment and lessons for living life morally, is not

a science. I teach science.

 

D) I find the concept of replacing the modern theory of evolution with

Christian creation mythology to be offensive in the extreme. It rejects

thousands of years of scientific exploration, an organized endeavor of

knowledge acquisition, assimilation, synthesis, and expansion, that is

without parallel in any other human sphere, in order to preserve the

perceived "validity" of a mythology embraced by a religious minority. This

is supreme ignorance.

 

 

4. As a science teacher, do you teach either and why?

 

I teach the modern theory of evolution. I discuss Christian

creation mythology only briefly, and in the context of a discussion creation

myths found in a number of different global cultures and religions.

[Stonehead]

So, you have a problem with origins? Life, the universe. My understanding of the origin of life on earth is outdated, circa 1992. At that time, there was a scientist (Cairns-Smith) who proposed a mineralogical template for the origin of organic molecules. Sort of a novel idea, that organic based life began with inorganic structures as templates (he used the analogy of a Roman arch) and that the origin was a one time deal. He speculated further that the stage was set to spread life elsewhere by inorganic means, i.e., genomes stored in silicon chips. Other people have suggested that life arose by seeding from comets (Panspermia). These scientists tend to be heretics, one that comes to mind is the astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle. He points to the adaptative radiation of the mammals and the rise of man as indicative of something operating that may not be explained by evolution.

 

Evolution proposes that the biological niches emptied by species extinction allowed the mammals to fill them, e.g., a dolphin's fin is a modified limb, you can see the digits in the bones, the dolphin was once a land mammal. Another example of the innovation of unconscious process of evolution is the development of the ear from jaw bones. Other examples, look at the development of the nervous system and brain.

 

Natural selection is a filter. It tends to reduce variety unless you look at the special case of artificial selection. Breeding can produce specialized modifications of body physiology and cognitive characteristics. However, as an unconscious and natural process, selection tends to favor those individuals those that are most fit to survive in their environment so that these individuals can pass on their genes. But what makes a particular organism fit for a set of conditions may not always confer fitness to survive such things as catastrophe.

 

Macro level I am assuming is when you refer to the different phyla or major body plans of organisms. These major biological differentiations arose early during the Precambrian-Cambrian time and we have not seen any major innovations since then. Everything else has been variations on a theme since that time. The ancestors of modern reptiles filled the niches prior to the today's mammals. There were large swimming 'reptiles' and flying 'reptiles'. These went extinct and mammals of all varieties filled the niches, e.g., whales, bats, etc.

 

I suppose the only gripe I have is that given genetic mutation you have to see this on a population level because a favorable mutation has to have another to mate with. And, that is where speciation occurs, on the population level, not on the individual level.

 

For an example of the freaky effects of evolution, have you seen any of the experiments conducted on the Drosphilia flies? You can change their internal biological clocks, their ontogeny, so that you can produce significant changes in body characteristics by altering developmental timing. For example, legs can appear where antennae should be (maybe a tie-in to stem cells here?). So changes can be produced directly by chemical means, hormones and such, or indirectly by the effects of light (length of day, e.g.) and temperature on the developmental physiology of organisms.

 

Look all that's happening is that you take a basic body plan like the vertebrates and then lengthen or shorten particular body parts or modify these parts in other ways. I rather think that you have to be indoctrinated in these beliefs (several years studying evolutionary biology in college maybe) but the sense that evolution makes when viewed in that light is so enlightening.

 

As far as the Big Bang (creation ex nihilo), that goes beyond my comprehension, though, some suggest that the universe pulsates through creation and destruction so that there are multiple origins rather than a singular event. If there is sufficient mass in the universe then a point is reached where the gravitational forces overtake the heat expansion of the big bang and cause the universe to rush back into itself. Otherwise, we have the heat death of the universe as it burns itself out.

 

Long winded, huh?

[E-rock]

Going back to Scott's "scientometric(?!) study that proves 5-10% of all scientific data is fabricated"

 

1. Here's what it REALLY says:

This estimation does not mean that only 5-10% of biomedical researchers fabricate data. Obviously, every research paper usually contains data from several different types of experiments such as Scatchard plot analysis. So, the percentage of articles with fabricated pictures at least for one of them should be several times more - that is about 20-30%. Then, every researcher participate in writing more than one article during his lifetime.

 

Therefore, the conclusion is that:

MOST LABORATORY RESEARCHERS IN BIOMEDICINE FABRICATE DATA FROM TIME TO TIME.

 

2. No methodology in obtaining this conslusion is explained, other than counting several "pictures" in a handful of articles from a peer-reviewed journal, that he CLAIMS are misrepresentative of real data.

 

3. The article only pertains to ONE type of plot, in ONE very specialized field of research.

 

4. The article sites no references and is not peer reviewed.

 

5. This article is an example of "scientific fraud"

 

6. One needs only to skim this second article by the same author to be fully convinced that this man is a crackpot. I especially enjoy the argument in his email to the "Office of Research Integrity" claiming that "ORI committed financial fraud requesting public money

to solve the problem which was already solved earlier by me"

 

7. Find some reputable sources to build your arguments with.

 

8. If you can't see that "Dmitriy K. Yuryev" is a crackpot conspiracy theorist merely by reading his articles, I suggest you compare his work with other internet crackpots, of which there are many.

 

9. "SCIENTOMETRIC" IS NOT A FUCKING WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited January 19, 2004 by E-rock

[JayB]

I can think of no higher endorsement for science than its rejection by certain classes of people.

[jon]

I can think of no higher endorsement for science than its rejection by certain classes of people.

 

[cracked]

I can think of no higher endorsement for science than its rejection by certain classes of people.

[scott_harpell]

I believe it was Horkheimer that said something to the effect that "it is naive and bigoted to think and speak only in the language of science" and that it was its own religion and that belied the empirical nature of it. Ironically enough, he was a German 'Marxist' more of the critical tradition of Frankfurt.

[jon]

And who is arguing we should do that?

[EWolfe]

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

--Douglas Adams