Deny Scientific Lazyness

reply to post by StellarX


Ahh, but you see... my post was about individuals glossing over the details and then making an assumption. That seems to be the topic of this thread, and if you felt that I was calling you lazy, you would be mistaken. It was simply utilized as an example of how arm chair science on this web site is often based on people not reading the entire source material, and never looking any deeper into the subject. Members on ATS often take a short look at a subject and then base their opinions on that. In your source material, while it did indeed mention a ancestral link between cows and humans, it was an out of context snippet that was contrary to the articles main point. Some might read that and get the wrong idea about the source material.

Peer review is extremely important in any scientific endeavor. That is not to say that it is a perfect system. As with anything human, there are bound to be faults. It is however, better than single individuals making claims without any one else, of credible background, checking the data.  

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Sparky63
You can theorize, speculate, guess,...ect. You can shout it from the roof tops and belittle anyone that disagrees with you, but you cannot prove it.

Bah!

.......

You may now consider yourself to be a less ignorant person than you were yesterday. Well done.


Don't be offended by my usage of the word 'ignorant', we are all ignorant of most things with some just doing more to advertise theirs.

Stellar

I think that your response is an excellent example of Scientific laziness.
You stated that you could probably prove man & cow had a common ancestor. Your proof was parroting someone else's opinion.

The source you quoted did in fact state that man & cattle had a common ancestor. Stating such, however, does not constitute proof.

I do not disagree that the genetic code or DNA of man & cows may be similar, much of it may even be identical. These are facts that can be proved & the experiments showing such can even be duplicated.

This similar DNA begs the question, "Why are they so much alike".
Here is where proof gives way to theory & speculation.

The Evolutionist will say it is because they have a common ancestor.
The Creationist will say that they have similar DNA because God made them that way.
the ID'er (is that the correct?) will postulate that it was the same designer who made both, so why shouldn't they have similar DNA?

None of these can be proved scientifically because they cannot be duplicated experimentally.

Fact; they share much of the same DNA
Theory; they shared a common ancestor.





[edit on 8-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63
The Evolutionist will say it is because they have a common ancestor.
The Creationist will say that they have similar DNA because God made them that way.
the ID'er (is that the correct?) will postulate that it was the same designer who made both, so why shouldn't they have similar DNA?
[edit on 8-10-2007 by Sparky63]

You would know if the Creationist is bs-ing by just asking them first. Ask them all the animals that have similar DNA. If they can't answer then you know they bs-ing...

Originally posted by Terapin
Ahh, but you see... my post was about individuals glossing over the details and then making an assumption.

So what did that have to do with my post?

That seems to be the topic of this thread, and if you felt that I was calling you lazy, you would be mistaken.

I have been known to make stupid/lazy mistakes in the past so if that's all your saying i am guilty as the rest of humanity.....

It was simply utilized as an example of how arm chair science on this web site is often based on people not reading the entire source material,.

I just thought it was a particularly bad example as the SPECIFIC bit of information i was looking for ( it was the first link that came up that had it and i did not want to waste time on a fact i consider pretty 'obvious' and well understood) to answer the question asked.

and never looking any deeper into the subject
Members on ATS often take a short look at a subject and then base their opinions on that.

As you might have realised 99% of my posts on ATS are responses to questions asked or ignorant statements made and given that fact i believe i am more than qualified to state that my presence might soon become redundant if people read ANY part of the source material , beside the headline and first paragraph, when they go so far as to open the link.

I would not mind if people read articles badly or not completely as that leaves room for discussion but the people in tend to engage don't often do any of that.

In your source material, while it did indeed mention a ancestral link between cows and humans, it was an out of context snippet that was contrary to the articles main point.

And that was all i needed to answer a specific question. I could have find a perfectly in context snippet but i have twenty posts i want to respond to and frankly the question were not deserving any added consideration or attention. The ignorance was as far as i am concerned refuted and i am not sure why you thought you could exploit it for your own agenda.

Some might read that and get the wrong idea about the source material.

Since i know that few if any people that i respond to read the entire source pages ( for if they did they might on at least a few occasions have found legitimate reasons to continue the discussion and ask for clarifications) i tend to quote what i believes answers the original question.

Peer review is extremely important in any scientific endeavor.

That depends on what the agenda of your 'peers' are or if they really are your peers at all. There is a reason i don't take part in ATS debates given that i know who i will be so unfairly judged by. Not taking criticism in the context of where it originates from is certainly a great approach but will cost you YEARS and years of making additional notes and comparisons only to have your originally accurate claims again denied for the same original bias. I think i supplied a list earlier that shows how good science and scientist were horribly mistreated by their so called peers and that they never received apologies for the loss of credibility and the years of additional work they had to do to break trough the unfounded resistance.

That is not to say that it is a perfect system. As with anything human, there are bound to be faults.

The faults almost unerringly tends to suppress new discoveries and i do not believe such a can be purely coincidental. Too much bad science gets too much moneyed and political support while almost all good science ( unless it serves corporate profit and control interests mind you) can't find the money to prove their point or publicise it once proven.

It is however, better than single individuals making claims without any one else, of credible background, checking the data.

We would all be far better off if every crank could be heard allowing the people to test their credibility and discern where their very own taxes be assigned. This is all possible but corporate and governmental science is for profit and thus have nothing to do with how well the scientific method is being employed and everything to do with what is found to be 'true'.

Stellar

You absolutely have to love legitimate criticism and a fair minded approach to levelling it against the deserving masses.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I think that your response is an excellent example of Scientific laziness.

It's not particularly scientific to cite a source and claim it as 'proof' so maybe it's more accurate to just call what i did 'lazy. In my defense, and in my defense, i happen to believe that the 'consensus' view i can so frequently be found railing against is accurate in this instance and that i am differing to all the science which have been done to show such links.

You stated that you could probably prove man & cow had a common ancestor. Your proof was parroting someone else's opinion.

There are no scientist who do not cite the findings ( opinions if you will) of their fellows so this is maybe not the best way to proceed with the criticism. I can cite dozens more sources showing the same link and then hundreds more trying to establish all the evidence for all the biological and anthropological findings that has led to such conclusions.

The source you quoted did in fact state that man & cattle had a common ancestor. Stating such, however, does not constitute proof.

It may in fact not be true but as may or may not be obvious i do believe that Cows and Humans have a common ancestor and used that 'evidence'/citation to show that it's a 'commonly' held view which the original author did not seem to realise.

I do not disagree that the genetic code or DNA of man & cows may be similar, much of it may even be identical. These are facts that can be proved & the experiments showing such can even be duplicated.

Sure.

This similar DNA begs the question, "Why are they so much alike".
Here is where proof gives way to theory & speculation.

Sooner or later it always does but personal motives and bias can do much to speed up or slow down the process.

The Evolutionist will say it is because they have a common ancestor.

They are clearly related and for the most part work in exactly the same ways so it's probably not reaching to claim as much .

The Creationist will say that they have similar DNA because God made them that way.

Sure but a god or Omnipotent designer would have no need of employing similar DNA structures or employing the same biochemical processes. A God could likely employ a fast array of means to would not yield anything like the compatibility and similarities we observe on Earth. That obviously does not disprove such a notion but it's not in my opinion a fair argument against a omipotent creator.

the ID'er (is that the correct?) will postulate that it was the same designer who made both, so why shouldn't they have similar DNA?

Well the intelligent designers might or might not have the capacity to create the entire tree of life on Earth or the patience to keep their pet project going along certain avenues for billions of years. We might presume that they made occasional and original alterations but they might or might not have anything to do with the original commonality or the evolutionary, and thus common descent, principle.

None of these can be proved scientifically because they cannot be duplicated experimentally.

I am not sure where to start but i know that given a a few hundred hours, to find the proper 'peer reviewed' ( for lack of better options) papers i believe i can make a great case that a very weak version of intelligent design is where we should be focusing our efforts towards a understanding of our surroundings.

Fact; they share much of the same DNA
Theory; they shared a common ancestor.

And what scientist should admit far more frequently is that they are not investigation the possibility of god's hand at work and that conclusions are thus biased towards so called 'naturalist' ( no intelligence) conclusions a priori.

Thanks for your refreshing approach and comments.

Stellar

[edit on 9-10-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Astyanax
I have a question for docklands.
If you dismantle the scientific 'establishment', would you still wish to preserve the scientific method?

I think i can answer for him and ask you instead...

Heaven spare us the presumptuous logorrhoea of self-appointed mouthpieces.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Heaven spare us the presumptuous logorrhoea of self-appointed mouthpieces.

See what good prayer will do you while having such low opinions of those you presume to question. Feel free to explain why you presumed that anyone suggested that the scientific method itself is the problem.

Stellar