If the IDers were correct, wouldn't that mean devolution?
So, basically we start off as complex multi-celled organisms and over time degenerate into bacteria?
Their point is that if the natural processes involved in genetic mutation can only produce degenerative change, there must be something else involved that allows complex life like us to exist. Ie, a designer.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Why do you post stuff like this? Its completely irrelevant to the discussion when taken out of context like that, and almost nobody here is going to understand it anyway.
Do you even know what a trinucleotide repeat sequence is? Or polymerase? My guess is no, since you spelled both of them incorrectly.
Pfft whatever man.
I was just giving the information about Rett's and how it works. How Huda Zoghbi discovered it using hypothesis of evolution theory.
Yea man, the trinucleotide repeat sequence is basically copying the DNA. The Helicase opens the DNA for copying and the polymerase copies it. That's my understanding of it, though I'm not a biologist and I don't claim to know the full extent of how that works. I didn't even claim to know how to spell it properly. I'm glad I spelled it incorrectly so you didn't accuse me of copy and pasting again.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sounds like the ID nuts only accept as much of the truth as they have to without being called crazy.
The idea that our species is 7 million years old with the chance of degeneration, while each and every individual has about 3 gene mutations at birth. I mean, what are the odds of us surviving for 7 million years?
IDism is nothing but an ISM, it's designed to distort facts to push an agenda. It's not a relavent arguement.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't think you really understand what the ID and creationist camps actually accept. They would accept that genes do mutate and that changes do occur that lead to slightly different animals in different environments. For example if a bat lost its sight and that actually became an advantage in its environment. However neither of the two groups would accept that species evolve in an upward motion until homo sapiens came along. The difference is the creationists follow a literal reading of the bible and believe the earth is about 6000 years old, whereas the ID camp would easily accept an universe that is billions of years old. The ID camp makes more sense in my view......
If you can accept that a bat losing its sight is an advantage, leading to a slightly different animal, why is it so hard to accept that over a million years, dozens of changes occur to that animal making it a very different creature.
Analogy:
Take two glasses of milk. Add a drop of blue food coloring to one, and a drop of red to the other. Doesn't make much differennce. Now add green to one and orange to the other. Now add ketchup to one and mustard to the other. Do this about 50 times and you no longer have two glasses of milk. You have two new mixtures that both started as the same. The flaw in ID is that they stop after the first drop and say it's changed but its not a new species. Reality is that those changes add up.
It's so simple!
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
This seems to be a really common belief that "nothing can be learned outside of school". But if you actually step out into the real world, you find out that's not entirely true. Some people like myself find autodidactic studies far superior than organized classrooms. Four years is way too long to learn this shit, I'll be done three fields of study at least in that time.
It's like that year you spend in highschool learning to write proper sentances, perform algebra and jump rope. I learned all that in 2 weeks once I had the opportunity outside of school. The school system is good for some people, but not for me. I plan to read this book I'm reading twice, while looking up all the theories and terms online, watch a few lectures, then I move on. I'm not looking for a career and that's sufficient study for me.
so basically you get a surface impression of everything with no in depth understanding of the field. you cannot learn everything there is to know about evolution for one book.
who is arguably the greatest teacher of all time? socrates. what was his method? interaction. learning cannot be done in a vacuum. there has to be give and take. you have to be challenged and questioned. you have to get your hands into things. you cant just read thing like a sponge and soak them up.
not all learning is done in the classroom. nor do you have to learn in a classroom. but im sorry, reading 2-3 books about evolution and then watching something online (if you believe what you read online that is proof right away that you're not as bright as you claim) over the course of 2 weeks does not put you anywhere near the level of expertise a phd has in a given field. you might be the jack of all trades, knowing enough about everything to make yourself look smart, but you will not truly be the master of any.
so basically you get a surface impression of everything with no in depth understanding of the field. you cannot learn everything there is to know about evolution for one book.
who is arguably the greatest teacher of all time? socrates. what was his method? interaction. learning cannot be done in a vacuum. there has to be give and take. you have to be challenged and questioned. you have to get your hands into things. you cant just read thing like a sponge and soak them up.
not all learning is done in the classroom. nor do you have to learn in a classroom. but im sorry, reading 2-3 books about evolution and then watching something online (if you believe what you read online that is proof right away that you're not as bright as you claim) over the course of 2 weeks does not put you anywhere near the level of expertise a phd has in a given field. you might be the jack of all trades, knowing enough about everything to make yourself look smart, but you will not truly be the master of any.
My guess is you have some kind of a degree. It's the only logic that justifies wasting all of that time. That and your big fat paycheck. Personally I don't care about the social or financial status. I care about the knowledge and in my opinion that is better.
Reading online is typically limited to trusted sources on the topics. I think you are awefully bigoted in your theories about learning.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually Soulsinging, you want to know the irony of your theory.
The books I'm reading on psychology and biology were lent to me by an individual with a biology degree. It's the same material she used in her university class. I however, am incorporating additional material from online sources, quite often in the form of instruction and lectures, identical to what you would see in a classroom. In-fact most of the lectures are just videos of a classroom. On top of that, I have the privledge of conversing with my friend that has a biology degree, as well as discussing on here with (it seems like) everyone on the forum, because you all have biology degrees as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually Soulsinging, you want to know the irony of your theory.
The books I'm reading on psychology and biology were lent to me by an individual with a biology degree. It's the same material she used in her university class. I however, am incorporating additional material from online sources, quite often in the form of instruction and lectures, identical to what you would see in a classroom. In-fact most of the lectures are just videos of a classroom. On top of that, I have the privledge of conversing with my friend that has a biology degree, as well as discussing on here with (it seems like) everyone on the forum, because you all have biology degrees as well.
i dont have a biology. i have an english degree. ive done a little reading about evolution, enough to know i will never be an expert on it. you've done enough to convince yourself you are an expert. do you have access to a lab so you can study cell structure through a microscope? animals for testing and experimentation? these are the kinds of resources you cannot get outside a university unless you're independently wealthy. and those are the kinds of real world hands on experience that no amount of reading or passive ingestion of information can ever duplicate.
i dont care about social status, but i do care about that big fat paycheck. however, the things i am learning now in law school i could not have learned on my own. it's not about the information im taking in. anyone can memorize a shit ton of information. it's about learning critical thought processes. that is where you need a community. a back and forth. a dialogue. hands on practical experience. learning to critique others and have your own work critiqued. you dont get those things from books.
i dont have a biology. i have an english degree. ive done a little reading about evolution, enough to know i will never be an expert on it. you've done enough to convince yourself you are an expert. do you have access to a lab so you can study cell structure through a microscope? animals for testing and experimentation? these are the kinds of resources you cannot get outside a university unless you're independently wealthy. and those are the kinds of real world hands on experience that no amount of reading or passive ingestion of information can ever duplicate.
i dont care about social status, but i do care about that big fat paycheck. however, the things i am learning now in law school i could not have learned on my own. it's not about the information im taking in. anyone can memorize a shit ton of information. it's about learning critical thought processes. that is where you need a community. a back and forth. a dialogue. hands on practical experience. learning to critique others and have your own work critiqued. you dont get those things from books.
I'm not doing any work! There is no need for me to have a lab, I'm not testing anything, I'm not doing experiments, I'm learning what has already been discovered.
Based on your logic, I am going to assume that you know sweet shit all about anything but Law and that includes the learning process.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The hardest thing to do is to try to teach people to think.
this is what im talking about. there's a difference between reading and memorizing tons of information and between learning how to think like a scientist or doctor or whatever. people say in law school, you dont learn the law, you learn how to think like a lawyer. it's the difference between being champion of the spelling bee and being ernest hemingway. one possesses information, and lots of it. the other knows how to take that information and turn it into something creative or incredible.
I'm not doing any work! There is no need for me to have a lab, I'm not testing anything, I'm not doing experiments, I'm learning what has already been discovered.
Based on your logic, I am going to assume that you know sweet shit all about anything but Law and that includes the learning process.
that is my point. you're memorizing a ton of information about various topics. that is not the same as being an evolutionary biologist with a phd. you may know a lot about the topic, but you havent learned how to be part of the discovery process within the topic. that is what you get in school.
im in my first semester of law school, i know sweet shit all about the law too i can tell you a lot about the novel catch-22 though!
this is what im talking about. there's a difference between reading and memorizing tons of information and between learning how to think like a scientist or doctor or whatever. people say in law school, you dont learn the law, you learn how to think like a lawyer. it's the difference between being champion of the spelling bee and being ernest hemingway. one possesses information, and lots of it. the other knows how to take that information and turn it into something creative or incredible.
There are other ways to do it, but a formal education is certainly the most efficient. Spending several years surrounded by experts in the field who's job it is to transmit knowledge to you, and devoting the majority of your time to obtaining that knowledge ... well, you can cram a whole lot of learning in there! Not that you couldn't learn it on your own, but it will take longer, and there's no one around to correct you when your thinking goes astray. And as you pointed out, particularly with the sciences there's a whole level that's not accessible without a boatload of money.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
that is my point. you're memorizing a ton of information about various topics. that is not the same as being an evolutionary biologist with a phd. you may know a lot about the topic, but you havent learned how to be part of the discovery process within the topic. that is what you get in school.
im in my first semester of law school, i know sweet shit all about the law too i can tell you a lot about the novel catch-22 though!
Ok, thought processes were one of the first things I studied. Why don't you go ahead and elaborate on exactly what kind of thinking you mean?
Typically, the occupational thought processes are well documented in the occupation texts
Here is an example from the text "Developmental Psychology" by David Schaffer:
Reseach Methods in Developmental Psychology
Our focus in this section is on the methods that researchers use to gather information about developing children and adolescents. Our first task is to understand why developmentalists consider it absolutely essential to collect all these facts. We will then discuss the advantages and disadvantages of five basic fact-finding stratagies: self-report methodologies, systematic observation, case studies, ethnography, and psychophysiological methods. Finally, we will consider the ways developmentalists might design their research to detect and explain age-related changes in children's feelings, thoughts, abilities and behaviors.
Then at the end of the chapter (too long to type it all out right now):
Postscript: on becoming a wise consumer of developmental research.....
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, thought processes were one of the first things I studied. Why don't you go ahead and elaborate on exactly what kind of thinking you mean?
Typically, the occupational thought processes are well documented in the occupation texts
Here is an example from the text "Developmental Psychology" by David Schaffer:
Reseach Methods in Developmental Psychology
Our focus in this section is on the methods that researchers use to gather information about developing children and adolescents. Our first task is to understand why developmentalists consider it absolutely essential to collect all these facts. We will then discuss the advantages and disadvantages of five basic fact-finding stratagies: self-report methodologies, systematic observation, case studies, ethnography, and psychophysiological methods. Finally, we will consider the ways developmentalists might design their research to detect and explain age-related changes in children's feelings, thoughts, abilities and behaviors.
Then at the end of the chapter (too long to type it all out right now):
Postscript: on becoming a wise consumer of developmental research.....
this is exactly what im talking about. you just see buzz words and then quote information you read in a book. i wasnt talking about developtmental psychology. i meant the scientific method. im sure you can tell me what the steps are, but im also sure you've never been in a lab formulating a theory of your own and testing it and interacting with colleagues to evaluate it. you can tell me ABOUT science, but you cannot DO science. you can explain evolution to me, and im certain everything you've said here is factually correct. but as scuba, the e.b. phd of the board pointed out, your examples aren't always on point and are more regurgitation than critical analysis. you know a lot about it, but your knowledge is all retrospective... telling about past discoveris, not how to take the next step.
you see me mention thought processes, and you go to a book about developmental psych, rather than realizing that im talking about scientific critical analysis in the context of our current debate. you wield an impressive array of knowledge, but it's not grounded in real experience.
this is exactly what im talking about. you just see buzz words and then quote information you read in a book. i wasnt talking about developtmental psychology. i meant the scientific method. im sure you can tell me what the steps are, but im also sure you've never been in a lab formulating a theory of your own and testing it and interacting with colleagues to evaluate it. you can tell me ABOUT science, but you cannot DO science. you can explain evolution to me, and im certain everything you've said here is factually correct. but as scuba, the e.b. phd of the board pointed out, your examples aren't always on point and are more regurgitation than critical analysis. you know a lot about it, but your knowledge is all retrospective... telling about past discoveris, not how to take the next step.
i just want to piggyback on the interaction part of this. That is exactly what furthering education is, as anyone who has gone on in education can tell you. You learn new things certainly, but you also learn how to form a hypothesis, talk with peers and leaders in the field about your ideas. Go back to the drawing board, talk with more people, test out your idea...put yourself and your projects out there...have discussion after that. Graduate school is about interaction and becoming an expert and gaining tools to become a leader in a field. It's about developing ideas that can stand up to rigorous review (some are good ideas and some fall flat) and you can justify why or why you chose to make the decisions you did. And that process is humbling b/c you should be able to argue and understand different viewpoints. sorry for the rambling...i'm out.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Think about it though. If that is the case, evolution doesn't matter. More importantly there's no such thing as chance, or choice, or free will. None of our decisions are really our own, none of our thoughts are our own. It doesn't matter what we do, because we were going to do it anyway. . . .
Evolution does matter, within the context of evolution. Just like the letter "J" matters at the beginning of this sentence in the context of this post. The letter "J" isn't the crux of this post, but it's a fundamental aspect of it. Each letter contributes to the purpose of the whole.
Chance? Choice? Free will? To awaken to predestination, and to realize one is intimately connected to the heart of Life, itself, and that one is therefore a perfect and valid part of everything, we are enabled to live in true choice and freedom! We no longer have to bumble along living lives of mediocrity! We can shoot for the moon, and the stars, knowing our each move is precious and perfectly synchronized with life!
Did you think your thoughts were your own? You didn't realize that your very source is from life, not your small self? Did you think you created your energy? And really you are but a channel of universal energy? I know... the human ego--the illusion is we think we are above nature. The truth is, we are one with nature. As we awake to the truth that we are the drop of water AND the ocean, that is when we become TRULY empowered. Having universal power flowing through us in each moment, to create as our heart's desire is no small thing!
"It doesn't matter...we're going to do it anyway." It doesn't seem to matter much, unless one values precious experience and Life. And the chance to tap into our potential in the moment and create our deepest desires. Self actualized people--those at the top of the hierarchy of human potential--they lose their sense of self, and work tirelessly towards the good of all, and as Abraham Maslow says, they experience:
"Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences." http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm
It's being asleep, and unaware of the fact that we are part of this vast potential that causes one to think it doesn't matter much. Those who are connected to the vast potential within us, to our connection to Life, itself--those who realize being a drop of water enables one to experience the entire ocean--they are vibrantly and fully living, with freedom, enlivened will and energetic vitality in each moment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
this is exactly what im talking about. you just see buzz words and then quote information you read in a book. i wasnt talking about developtmental psychology. i meant the scientific method. im sure you can tell me what the steps are, but im also sure you've never been in a lab formulating a theory of your own and testing it and interacting with colleagues to evaluate it. you can tell me ABOUT science, but you cannot DO science. you can explain evolution to me, and im certain everything you've said here is factually correct. but as scuba, the e.b. phd of the board pointed out, your examples aren't always on point and are more regurgitation than critical analysis. you know a lot about it, but your knowledge is all retrospective... telling about past discoveris, not how to take the next step.
you see me mention thought processes, and you go to a book about developmental psych, rather than realizing that im talking about scientific critical analysis in the context of our current debate. you wield an impressive array of knowledge, but it's not grounded in real experience.
Wow, seems like you have something wrong with your thought processes.
I was stating that occupational texts, such as David R. Shcaffer's "Developmental Psychology" contains segments that explain the research methods, experimentation processes and thinking processes associated with the field. The excerpt from his book was an example.
Sure I can't DO science, because I don't have a degree, but I'm not out to DO science I'm out to KNOW it. Sure, all of what I have said in this thread is factual, it's not distorted and I understand it 100%. The problem with this thread is your assumption that ONLY higher formal education can get someone the neccissary knowledge. That is why I don't care what you have to say about this topic, because you don't trust your own knowledge. Or do you have a degree, because according to Soulsinging a degree in Law grants you the discretion to determine who has and hasn't knowledge on any particular topic. It's also apparently covered in his Law class, the process by which people think within the Scientific community.
I could transcribe another section from the very same book discussing the scientific method.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
--those who realize being a drop of water enables one to experience the entire ocean--they are vibrantly and fully living, with freedom, enlivened will and energetic vitality in each moment.
This reminds me of an instructional video by Bruce Lee "Be one with the water, bee one with the wind." it took me a long ass time to figure out what he was talking about. I suppose it would have been faster to just talk to you.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
you can explain evolution to me, and im certain everything you've said here is factually correct. but as scuba, the e.b. phd of the board pointed out, your examples aren't always on point and are more regurgitation than critical analysis.
And as far as I know there are no PhD evolutionary anthropologists who regularily visit this board, making me the leading authority (I have an honours degree in the subject, and have done EXTENSIVE studying of it on my own time, and plan on going further when I can) and I happen to agree with just about everything Ahnimus says.
It's funny because there have been times when people have looking through their own points of view and have not seemed to be able to understand what Ahnimus has been saying. That is not a problem with Ahnimus' ignorance. And it's not an indicator of the correctness of Ahnimus' view.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Wow, seems like you have something wrong with your thought processes.
I was stating that occupational texts, such as David R. Shcaffer's "Developmental Psychology" contains segments that explain the research methods, experimentation processes and thinking processes associated with the field. The excerpt from his book was an example.
Sure I can't DO science, because I don't have a degree, but I'm not out to DO science I'm out to KNOW it. Sure, all of what I have said in this thread is factual, it's not distorted and I understand it 100%. The problem with this thread is your assumption that ONLY higher formal education can get someone the neccissary knowledge. That is why I don't care what you have to say about this topic, because you don't trust your own knowledge. Or do you have a degree, because according to Soulsinging a degree in Law grants you the discretion to determine who has and hasn't knowledge on any particular topic. It's also apparently covered in his Law class, the process by which people think within the Scientific community.
I could transcribe another section from the very same book discussing the scientific method.
precisely. you can transcribe me things from books. becos your knowledge is not original or of your own discovery. it is all knowledge memorized from other people.
im not disputing that what you've said is accurate. im sure it is. im also quite sure you know more about the science of it than i do, cos i dont know jack shit abotu science. but i also know that you cannot contribute something that is your own, that comes from you. you can only recite to me and others the things other people have said.
formal higher education is not the only way to do what you do, and it's probably not the best way to do what you do. if you just want to memorize other people's work, by all means, dont go to school and buy books. but if you want to make meaningful additions and contributions to science, then a formal education is an excellent way to do it. there are other ways, no doubt. but that's not what you're doing.
my point in all of this is not that what you've said is wrong. my point in all of this is that you have read a lot about these topics and memorized a lot of facts about it. but you are not a scientist, nor are you an expert in the field to the same extent that the people writing those books are. you're like the court reporter to a supreme court justice. they're doing the work. you're just spouting it off for people that want to hear it.
precisely. you can transcribe me things from books. becos your knowledge is not original or of your own discovery. it is all knowledge memorized from other people.
im not disputing that what you've said is accurate. im sure it is. im also quite sure you know more about the science of it than i do, cos i dont know jack shit abotu science. but i also know that you cannot contribute something that is your own, that comes from you. you can only recite to me and others the things other people have said.
formal higher education is not the only way to do what you do, and it's probably not the best way to do what you do. if you just want to memorize other people's work, by all means, dont go to school and buy books. but if you want to make meaningful additions and contributions to science, then a formal education is an excellent way to do it. there are other ways, no doubt. but that's not what you're doing.
my point in all of this is not that what you've said is wrong. my point in all of this is that you have read a lot about these topics and memorized a lot of facts about it. but you are not a scientist, nor are you an expert in the field to the same extent that the people writing those books are. you're like the court reporter to a supreme court justice. they're doing the work. you're just spouting it off for people that want to hear it.
Yea, I thought I made that pretty clear.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's funny because there have been times when people have looking through their own points of view and have not seemed to be able to understand what Ahnimus has been saying. That is not a problem with Ahnimus' ignorance. And it's not an indicator of the correctness of Ahnimus' view.
no, i read that quote. i also read the posts of scubascott, who IS a phd biology student. he said exactly what i have said: that ahnimus is correct, but is simply rattlign off things he's memorized, some of which dont seem to be on point at all. he does not respond critically to direct questions, he recites answers that are correct factually becos he memorized them, but dont really answer the questions. the knowledge is second hand, not personally derived from critical give and take. thus, there's no "thinking on your feet" scientific debate. it's like an encyclopedia.
i dont know whether or not i understand what ahnimus is saying. i dont get science at all and didnt even bother reading his posts. i know his tactics and they show a mind-blowing memory, but little critical analysis. it seems borderline autistic.
precisely. you can transcribe me things from books. becos your knowledge is not original or of your own discovery. it is all knowledge memorized from other people.
im not disputing that what you've said is accurate. im sure it is. im also quite sure you know more about the science of it than i do, cos i dont know jack shit abotu science. but i also know that you cannot contribute something that is your own, that comes from you. you can only recite to me and others the things other people have said.
formal higher education is not the only way to do what you do, and it's probably not the best way to do what you do. if you just want to memorize other people's work, by all means, dont go to school and buy books. but if you want to make meaningful additions and contributions to science, then a formal education is an excellent way to do it. there are other ways, no doubt. but that's not what you're doing.
my point in all of this is not that what you've said is wrong. my point in all of this is that you have read a lot about these topics and memorized a lot of facts about it. but you are not a scientist, nor are you an expert in the field to the same extent that the people writing those books are. you're like the court reporter to a supreme court justice. they're doing the work. you're just spouting it off for people that want to hear it.
It's pretty obvious to me that Ahnimus not only reads the information but that he processes it and contributes his own unique perspective. I was personally impressed, for example, with what he was saying about chance, earlier, which is beyond the bounds of the traditional view, at least judging by scubascott's reaction to what Ahnimus said. And Ahnimus' point was right on, regarding perceived chance and what the REALITY of chance truly is. This is not regurgitation, this is the ability to process and integrate various schools of thought, which one can only do when one actually understands the material.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
no, i read that quote. i also read the posts of scubascott, who IS a phd biology student. he said exactly what i have said: that ahnimus is correct, but is simply rattlign off things he's memorized, some of which dont seem to be on point at all. he does not respond critically to direct questions, he recites answers that are correct factually becos he memorized them, but dont really answer the questions. the knowledge is second hand, not personally derived from critical give and take. thus, there's no "thinking on your feet" scientific debate. it's like an encyclopedia.
i dont know whether or not i understand what ahnimus is saying. i dont get science at all and didnt even bother reading his posts. i know his tactics and they show a mind-blowing memory, but little critical analysis. it seems borderline autistic.
So let me get this straight. You have a problem with Ahnimus' level of discernment as a layperson. However, your determination is made based not on a discernment of the information yourself (you said: "I don't get science at all and didn't even bother reading his posts"), but rather it's made on your own bias that one in possession of a degree automatically proves the validity of their argument, merely by the existing degree? In my world, discernment of information, only, discerns information. If this is the level of your own discernment, I think I'll pass on your argument, thanks. When I see Ahnimus' points critically dismantled, then they will be dismantled. Seriously, and to say the autistic thing on top of that, you can't make your own personal vendetta any more clear. Thanks but no thanks.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So let me get this straight. You have a problem with Ahnimus' level of discernment as a layperson. However, your determination is made based not on a discernment of the information yourself (you said: "I don't get science at all and didn't even bother reading his posts"), but rather it's made on your own bias that one in possession of a degree automatically proves the validity of their argument, merely by the existing degree? In my world, discernment of information, only, discerns information. If this is the level of your own discernment, I think I'll pass on your argument, thanks. When I see Ahnimus' points critically dismantled, then they will be dismantled. Seriously, and to say the autistic thing on top of that, you can't make your own personal vendetta any more clear. Thanks but no thanks.
my perception had nothing to do with his points and everything to do with his style of debate. degree or no degree, i am familiar with his tactics and they show knowledge and comperhension, but not adaptability. having a degree is irrelevant. but scuba pointed it out. he is given a question, and he is unable to answer the question. he instead provides an off point example lifted from a book he read that reinforces his original point but does not respond to the question or challenge with which he was presented. this is classic autistic behavior. staggering information retention and powers of apprehension, but limited ability to formulate it or interact with others about it. it was not intended to be an insult or a putdown. im truly impressed by how much knowledge he possesses. im just not entirely convinced he'd be able to apply it in terms of scientific discovery or progress.
go look up the old thread about abuse of women and you will see what i mean. you were not here for that. it was my first introduction to him. it displayed a total inability to empathize or understand any views but his own. if it happened to him, it was the normal. if anyone disagreed, they were abnormal. he seemed utterly unable to comprehend that his experience might have been atypical in any way or to comprehend any experience outside his own. and if you read that thread, i think even you would agree his experience and belief was anything but typical or rational.
If you can accept that a bat losing its sight is an advantage, leading to a slightly different animal, why is it so hard to accept that over a million years, dozens of changes occur to that animal making it a very different creature.
Analogy:
Take two glasses of milk. Add a drop of blue food coloring to one, and a drop of red to the other. Doesn't make much differennce. Now add green to one and orange to the other. Now add ketchup to one and mustard to the other. Do this about 50 times and you no longer have two glasses of milk. You have two new mixtures that both started as the same. The flaw in ID is that they stop after the first drop and say it's changed but its not a new species. Reality is that those changes add up.
It's so simple!
well its hard to accept because in the case of the bat it is a degenerative change that has actually become an advantage in its environment. true evolution requires that new information is written in the genetic code. a classic example that commonly is used is that of the woodpecker. the whole system would need to be operating otherwise the early woodpeckers would have died out. there is no use banging your head against a tree if your skull and brain hasen't evolved protective measures. that is my understanding anyway and it seems like a good arguement. if you want to try to correct my thinking be my guest.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Let me break down my intentions. Since they are on trial, this will count as my testimony. Since we already have a lawyer on prosecution, is there anyone willing to defend me and do we have a judge? If not, I will defend myself.
My intention is not to bring about some revelation as my own. My intention is to educate myself on just about everything. Even things like Islam and Christianity that I don't really care that much about. Above all my personal goals are to understand everything, primarily the way people work and the way energy works.
Study evolution, study psychology, study biology, study developmental psychology and on and on we go. I'm not intent on becoming a master of any field, I'm intent on mastering cross-discipline study. Most of the major discoveries of modern times have been cross-discipline.
Many of the discoveries I make are new to me, but not new to the field of research. If it's new to me and I take the initiative to learn about new discoveries, then chances are others haven't heard of it either. You will likely notice that all of my posts are of this nature. I am a strong believer in behaviorism and information-processing. To me, people act the way they do and have the percepts they do, because of their knowledge. I am included in that catagory "people" as I always am when I use the term, or else I would say "they" or "those people".
So, what I do is learn things, maybe others already know, that changes my perception of reality or changes my behavior and I share that with whatever community I'm involved in. In this case, it's the Pearl Jam forums, but don't get me wrong, I discuss this stuff with everyone I know and many of them are experts. All of them have different views.
In terms of evolution, my brother and his fiance, a creationist I work with, my parents, my sister and people on this board. Here is the way it works, I talk to my bro, he went to UNBC for a Computer Science degree and is a Christian, his Fiance went to UWO for a Biology degree, she is also a Christian. Their point of view is theistic-evolution, they believe in both creation and evolution. The creationist dude I work with. He pretty much doesn't know anything about anything. He talks really big, but when I hit him with a serious question, it goes right over his head. Anyway, he is a good sounding board for theories that challenge Christianity. I asked him several times about logic arguements against and for God to see his reaction. I perform my own scientific research on society, on people I know, on this board, but I don't care if anyone else accepts it.
Example: To creationist dude at work
Q: Scientists believe that we evolved from a species originating in Ethiopia and all of our skins were originally black. Black skin is the dominant variant in human DNA, how did we ever become white?
A: Because evolution is wrong.
Of course if I ask the same question to a biologist, I get a completely different answer. In-fact I did bounce this question off my bro's fiancee and got a completely different answer.
Example: To creationist dude at work
Q: If God is perfect and created Man in his image, then why does man make mistakes?
A: He makes imperfect choices, but man is still perfect.
Go back and aks the biologist again and she says "God did not make man perfect, that's not what 'in his image' means."
Anyway, this is basically what I do. I'm getting different perspectives on this and learning both from texts and my own inferences how people work. I'm doing this for solely my own benefit, but also spreading information to hopefully influence people's behavior and thoughts with new information. I'm not trying to be malicious, just trying to supply information. I know how hard it is to gather appropriate information in a simple format. This term has been on the tip of my tongue all day and for the life of me I can't remember it. With that specific term I can open a can of information that originally took hours to surf out on the internet.... Cognitive Dissonance, just remembered it, cool
I don't mean harm or bad intent, peace.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Let me break down my intentions. Since they are on trial, this will count as my testimony. Since we already have a lawyer on prosecution, is there anyone willing to defend me and do we have a judge? If not, I will defend myself.
My intention is not to bring about some revelation as my own. My intention is to educate myself on just about everything. Even things like Islam and Christianity that I don't really care that much about. Above all my personal goals are to understand everything, primarily the way people work and the way energy works.
Study evolution, study psychology, study biology, study developmental psychology and on and on we go. I'm not intent on becoming a master of any field, I'm intent on mastering cross-discipline study. Most of the major discoveries of modern times have been cross-discipline.
Many of the discoveries I make are new to me, but not new to the field of research. If it's new to me and I take the initiative to learn about new discoveries, then chances are others haven't heard of it either. You will likely notice that all of my posts are of this nature. I am a strong believer in behaviorism and information-processing. To me, people act the way they do and have the percepts they do, because of their knowledge. I am included in that catagory "people" as I always am when I use the term, or else I would say "they" or "those people".
So, what I do is learn things, maybe others already know, that changes my perception of reality or changes my behavior and I share that with whatever community I'm involved in. In this case, it's the Pearl Jam forums, but don't get me wrong, I discuss this stuff with everyone I know and many of them are experts. All of them have different views.
In terms of evolution, my brother and his fiance, a creationist I work with, my parents, my sister and people on this board. Here is the way it works, I talk to my bro, he went to UNBC for a Computer Science degree and is a Christian, his Fiance went to UWO for a Biology degree, she is also a Christian. Their point of view is theistic-evolution, they believe in both creation and evolution. The creationist dude I work with. He pretty much doesn't know anything about anything. He talks really big, but when I hit him with a serious question, it goes right over his head. Anyway, he is a good sounding board for theories that challenge Christianity. I asked him several times about logic arguements against and for God to see his reaction. I perform my own scientific research on society, on people I know, on this board, but I don't care if anyone else accepts it.
Example: To creationist dude at work
Q: Scientists believe that we evolved from a species originating in Ethiopia and all of our skins were originally black. Black skin is the dominant variant in human DNA, how did we ever become white?
A: Because evolution is wrong.
Of course if I ask the same question to a biologist, I get a completely different answer. In-fact I did bounce this question off my bro's fiancee and got a completely different answer.
Example: To creationist dude at work
Q: If God is perfect and created Man in his image, then why does man make mistakes?
A: He makes imperfect choices, but man is still perfect.
Go back and aks the biologist again and she says "God did not make man perfect, that's not what 'in his image' means."
Anyway, this is basically what I do. I'm getting different perspectives on this and learning both from texts and my own inferences how people work. I'm doing this for solely my own benefit, but also spreading information to hopefully influence people's behavior and thoughts with new information. I'm not trying to be malicious, just trying to supply information. I know how hard it is to gather appropriate information in a simple format. This term has been on the tip of my tongue all day and for the life of me I can't remember it. With that specific term I can open a can of information that originally took hours to surf out on the internet.... Cognitive Dissonance, just remembered it, cool
I don't mean harm or bad intent, peace.
i know you mean no harm. i dont either. i just bristled when you belittled formal education. there is nothing laughable or arbitrary about someone with a phd. they earned that degree and have the skills to back it up. you have a different set of knowledge and skills and that's ok. it's only when you seem to be trying to imply that higher education is pointless and your knowledge is superior that i take umbrage. try telling tremorvoid that the biology phd she spent 10 years pursuing was a waste of time and that you know as much about her field becos you spent 2 weeks reading books as she learned about it in 10 years.
i also think you and angelica should get married you guys are a match made in heaven.
Comments
Their point is that if the natural processes involved in genetic mutation can only produce degenerative change, there must be something else involved that allows complex life like us to exist. Ie, a designer.
-C Addison
Pfft whatever man.
I was just giving the information about Rett's and how it works. How Huda Zoghbi discovered it using hypothesis of evolution theory.
Yea man, the trinucleotide repeat sequence is basically copying the DNA. The Helicase opens the DNA for copying and the polymerase copies it. That's my understanding of it, though I'm not a biologist and I don't claim to know the full extent of how that works. I didn't even claim to know how to spell it properly. I'm glad I spelled it incorrectly so you didn't accuse me of copy and pasting again.
The idea that our species is 7 million years old with the chance of degeneration, while each and every individual has about 3 gene mutations at birth. I mean, what are the odds of us surviving for 7 million years?
IDism is nothing but an ISM, it's designed to distort facts to push an agenda. It's not a relavent arguement.
If you can accept that a bat losing its sight is an advantage, leading to a slightly different animal, why is it so hard to accept that over a million years, dozens of changes occur to that animal making it a very different creature.
Analogy:
Take two glasses of milk. Add a drop of blue food coloring to one, and a drop of red to the other. Doesn't make much differennce. Now add green to one and orange to the other. Now add ketchup to one and mustard to the other. Do this about 50 times and you no longer have two glasses of milk. You have two new mixtures that both started as the same. The flaw in ID is that they stop after the first drop and say it's changed but its not a new species. Reality is that those changes add up.
It's so simple!
-Ashley Montagu
so basically you get a surface impression of everything with no in depth understanding of the field. you cannot learn everything there is to know about evolution for one book.
who is arguably the greatest teacher of all time? socrates. what was his method? interaction. learning cannot be done in a vacuum. there has to be give and take. you have to be challenged and questioned. you have to get your hands into things. you cant just read thing like a sponge and soak them up.
not all learning is done in the classroom. nor do you have to learn in a classroom. but im sorry, reading 2-3 books about evolution and then watching something online (if you believe what you read online that is proof right away that you're not as bright as you claim) over the course of 2 weeks does not put you anywhere near the level of expertise a phd has in a given field. you might be the jack of all trades, knowing enough about everything to make yourself look smart, but you will not truly be the master of any.
My guess is you have some kind of a degree. It's the only logic that justifies wasting all of that time. That and your big fat paycheck. Personally I don't care about the social or financial status. I care about the knowledge and in my opinion that is better.
Reading online is typically limited to trusted sources on the topics. I think you are awefully bigoted in your theories about learning.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The books I'm reading on psychology and biology were lent to me by an individual with a biology degree. It's the same material she used in her university class. I however, am incorporating additional material from online sources, quite often in the form of instruction and lectures, identical to what you would see in a classroom. In-fact most of the lectures are just videos of a classroom. On top of that, I have the privledge of conversing with my friend that has a biology degree, as well as discussing on here with (it seems like) everyone on the forum, because you all have biology degrees as well.
i dont have a biology. i have an english degree. ive done a little reading about evolution, enough to know i will never be an expert on it. you've done enough to convince yourself you are an expert. do you have access to a lab so you can study cell structure through a microscope? animals for testing and experimentation? these are the kinds of resources you cannot get outside a university unless you're independently wealthy. and those are the kinds of real world hands on experience that no amount of reading or passive ingestion of information can ever duplicate.
i dont care about social status, but i do care about that big fat paycheck. however, the things i am learning now in law school i could not have learned on my own. it's not about the information im taking in. anyone can memorize a shit ton of information. it's about learning critical thought processes. that is where you need a community. a back and forth. a dialogue. hands on practical experience. learning to critique others and have your own work critiqued. you dont get those things from books.
I'm not doing any work! There is no need for me to have a lab, I'm not testing anything, I'm not doing experiments, I'm learning what has already been discovered.
Based on your logic, I am going to assume that you know sweet shit all about anything but Law and that includes the learning process.
this is what im talking about. there's a difference between reading and memorizing tons of information and between learning how to think like a scientist or doctor or whatever. people say in law school, you dont learn the law, you learn how to think like a lawyer. it's the difference between being champion of the spelling bee and being ernest hemingway. one possesses information, and lots of it. the other knows how to take that information and turn it into something creative or incredible.
that is my point. you're memorizing a ton of information about various topics. that is not the same as being an evolutionary biologist with a phd. you may know a lot about the topic, but you havent learned how to be part of the discovery process within the topic. that is what you get in school.
im in my first semester of law school, i know sweet shit all about the law too
Ok, thought processes were one of the first things I studied. Why don't you go ahead and elaborate on exactly what kind of thinking you mean?
Typically, the occupational thought processes are well documented in the occupation texts
Here is an example from the text "Developmental Psychology" by David Schaffer:
Reseach Methods in Developmental Psychology
Our focus in this section is on the methods that researchers use to gather information about developing children and adolescents. Our first task is to understand why developmentalists consider it absolutely essential to collect all these facts. We will then discuss the advantages and disadvantages of five basic fact-finding stratagies: self-report methodologies, systematic observation, case studies, ethnography, and psychophysiological methods. Finally, we will consider the ways developmentalists might design their research to detect and explain age-related changes in children's feelings, thoughts, abilities and behaviors.
Then at the end of the chapter (too long to type it all out right now):
Postscript: on becoming a wise consumer of developmental research.....
this is exactly what im talking about. you just see buzz words and then quote information you read in a book. i wasnt talking about developtmental psychology. i meant the scientific method. im sure you can tell me what the steps are, but im also sure you've never been in a lab formulating a theory of your own and testing it and interacting with colleagues to evaluate it. you can tell me ABOUT science, but you cannot DO science. you can explain evolution to me, and im certain everything you've said here is factually correct. but as scuba, the e.b. phd of the board pointed out, your examples aren't always on point and are more regurgitation than critical analysis. you know a lot about it, but your knowledge is all retrospective... telling about past discoveris, not how to take the next step.
you see me mention thought processes, and you go to a book about developmental psych, rather than realizing that im talking about scientific critical analysis in the context of our current debate. you wield an impressive array of knowledge, but it's not grounded in real experience.
i just want to piggyback on the interaction part of this. That is exactly what furthering education is, as anyone who has gone on in education can tell you. You learn new things certainly, but you also learn how to form a hypothesis, talk with peers and leaders in the field about your ideas. Go back to the drawing board, talk with more people, test out your idea...put yourself and your projects out there...have discussion after that. Graduate school is about interaction and becoming an expert and gaining tools to become a leader in a field. It's about developing ideas that can stand up to rigorous review (some are good ideas and some fall flat) and you can justify why or why you chose to make the decisions you did. And that process is humbling b/c you should be able to argue and understand different viewpoints. sorry for the rambling...i'm out.
Evolution does matter, within the context of evolution. Just like the letter "J" matters at the beginning of this sentence in the context of this post. The letter "J" isn't the crux of this post, but it's a fundamental aspect of it. Each letter contributes to the purpose of the whole.
Chance? Choice? Free will? To awaken to predestination, and to realize one is intimately connected to the heart of Life, itself, and that one is therefore a perfect and valid part of everything, we are enabled to live in true choice and freedom! We no longer have to bumble along living lives of mediocrity! We can shoot for the moon, and the stars, knowing our each move is precious and perfectly synchronized with life!
Did you think your thoughts were your own? You didn't realize that your very source is from life, not your small self? Did you think you created your energy? And really you are but a channel of universal energy? I know... the human ego--the illusion is we think we are above nature. The truth is, we are one with nature. As we awake to the truth that we are the drop of water AND the ocean, that is when we become TRULY empowered. Having universal power flowing through us in each moment, to create as our heart's desire is no small thing!
"It doesn't matter...we're going to do it anyway." It doesn't seem to matter much, unless one values precious experience and Life. And the chance to tap into our potential in the moment and create our deepest desires. Self actualized people--those at the top of the hierarchy of human potential--they lose their sense of self, and work tirelessly towards the good of all, and as Abraham Maslow says, they experience:
"Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences." http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm
It's being asleep, and unaware of the fact that we are part of this vast potential that causes one to think it doesn't matter much. Those who are connected to the vast potential within us, to our connection to Life, itself--those who realize being a drop of water enables one to experience the entire ocean--they are vibrantly and fully living, with freedom, enlivened will and energetic vitality in each moment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Wow, seems like you have something wrong with your thought processes.
I was stating that occupational texts, such as David R. Shcaffer's "Developmental Psychology" contains segments that explain the research methods, experimentation processes and thinking processes associated with the field. The excerpt from his book was an example.
Sure I can't DO science, because I don't have a degree, but I'm not out to DO science I'm out to KNOW it. Sure, all of what I have said in this thread is factual, it's not distorted and I understand it 100%. The problem with this thread is your assumption that ONLY higher formal education can get someone the neccissary knowledge. That is why I don't care what you have to say about this topic, because you don't trust your own knowledge. Or do you have a degree, because according to Soulsinging a degree in Law grants you the discretion to determine who has and hasn't knowledge on any particular topic. It's also apparently covered in his Law class, the process by which people think within the Scientific community.
I could transcribe another section from the very same book discussing the scientific method.
This reminds me of an instructional video by Bruce Lee "Be one with the water, bee one with the wind." it took me a long ass time to figure out what he was talking about. I suppose it would have been faster to just talk to you.
Did you miss this quote:
It's funny because there have been times when people have looking through their own points of view and have not seemed to be able to understand what Ahnimus has been saying. That is not a problem with Ahnimus' ignorance. And it's not an indicator of the correctness of Ahnimus' view.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
precisely. you can transcribe me things from books. becos your knowledge is not original or of your own discovery. it is all knowledge memorized from other people.
im not disputing that what you've said is accurate. im sure it is. im also quite sure you know more about the science of it than i do, cos i dont know jack shit abotu science. but i also know that you cannot contribute something that is your own, that comes from you. you can only recite to me and others the things other people have said.
formal higher education is not the only way to do what you do, and it's probably not the best way to do what you do. if you just want to memorize other people's work, by all means, dont go to school and buy books. but if you want to make meaningful additions and contributions to science, then a formal education is an excellent way to do it. there are other ways, no doubt. but that's not what you're doing.
my point in all of this is not that what you've said is wrong. my point in all of this is that you have read a lot about these topics and memorized a lot of facts about it. but you are not a scientist, nor are you an expert in the field to the same extent that the people writing those books are. you're like the court reporter to a supreme court justice. they're doing the work. you're just spouting it off for people that want to hear it.
Yea, I thought I made that pretty clear.
no, i read that quote. i also read the posts of scubascott, who IS a phd biology student. he said exactly what i have said: that ahnimus is correct, but is simply rattlign off things he's memorized, some of which dont seem to be on point at all. he does not respond critically to direct questions, he recites answers that are correct factually becos he memorized them, but dont really answer the questions. the knowledge is second hand, not personally derived from critical give and take. thus, there's no "thinking on your feet" scientific debate. it's like an encyclopedia.
i dont know whether or not i understand what ahnimus is saying. i dont get science at all and didnt even bother reading his posts. i know his tactics and they show a mind-blowing memory, but little critical analysis. it seems borderline autistic.
fair enough then. we're agreed. case closed.
intelligent design people are nuts!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
my perception had nothing to do with his points and everything to do with his style of debate. degree or no degree, i am familiar with his tactics and they show knowledge and comperhension, but not adaptability. having a degree is irrelevant. but scuba pointed it out. he is given a question, and he is unable to answer the question. he instead provides an off point example lifted from a book he read that reinforces his original point but does not respond to the question or challenge with which he was presented. this is classic autistic behavior. staggering information retention and powers of apprehension, but limited ability to formulate it or interact with others about it. it was not intended to be an insult or a putdown. im truly impressed by how much knowledge he possesses. im just not entirely convinced he'd be able to apply it in terms of scientific discovery or progress.
go look up the old thread about abuse of women and you will see what i mean. you were not here for that. it was my first introduction to him. it displayed a total inability to empathize or understand any views but his own. if it happened to him, it was the normal. if anyone disagreed, they were abnormal. he seemed utterly unable to comprehend that his experience might have been atypical in any way or to comprehend any experience outside his own. and if you read that thread, i think even you would agree his experience and belief was anything but typical or rational.
well its hard to accept because in the case of the bat it is a degenerative change that has actually become an advantage in its environment. true evolution requires that new information is written in the genetic code. a classic example that commonly is used is that of the woodpecker. the whole system would need to be operating otherwise the early woodpeckers would have died out. there is no use banging your head against a tree if your skull and brain hasen't evolved protective measures. that is my understanding anyway and it seems like a good arguement. if you want to try to correct my thinking be my guest.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
My intention is not to bring about some revelation as my own. My intention is to educate myself on just about everything. Even things like Islam and Christianity that I don't really care that much about. Above all my personal goals are to understand everything, primarily the way people work and the way energy works.
Study evolution, study psychology, study biology, study developmental psychology and on and on we go. I'm not intent on becoming a master of any field, I'm intent on mastering cross-discipline study. Most of the major discoveries of modern times have been cross-discipline.
Many of the discoveries I make are new to me, but not new to the field of research. If it's new to me and I take the initiative to learn about new discoveries, then chances are others haven't heard of it either. You will likely notice that all of my posts are of this nature. I am a strong believer in behaviorism and information-processing. To me, people act the way they do and have the percepts they do, because of their knowledge. I am included in that catagory "people" as I always am when I use the term, or else I would say "they" or "those people".
So, what I do is learn things, maybe others already know, that changes my perception of reality or changes my behavior and I share that with whatever community I'm involved in. In this case, it's the Pearl Jam forums, but don't get me wrong, I discuss this stuff with everyone I know and many of them are experts. All of them have different views.
In terms of evolution, my brother and his fiance, a creationist I work with, my parents, my sister and people on this board. Here is the way it works, I talk to my bro, he went to UNBC for a Computer Science degree and is a Christian, his Fiance went to UWO for a Biology degree, she is also a Christian. Their point of view is theistic-evolution, they believe in both creation and evolution. The creationist dude I work with. He pretty much doesn't know anything about anything. He talks really big, but when I hit him with a serious question, it goes right over his head. Anyway, he is a good sounding board for theories that challenge Christianity. I asked him several times about logic arguements against and for God to see his reaction. I perform my own scientific research on society, on people I know, on this board, but I don't care if anyone else accepts it.
Example: To creationist dude at work
Q: Scientists believe that we evolved from a species originating in Ethiopia and all of our skins were originally black. Black skin is the dominant variant in human DNA, how did we ever become white?
A: Because evolution is wrong.
Of course if I ask the same question to a biologist, I get a completely different answer. In-fact I did bounce this question off my bro's fiancee and got a completely different answer.
Example: To creationist dude at work
Q: If God is perfect and created Man in his image, then why does man make mistakes?
A: He makes imperfect choices, but man is still perfect.
Go back and aks the biologist again and she says "God did not make man perfect, that's not what 'in his image' means."
Anyway, this is basically what I do. I'm getting different perspectives on this and learning both from texts and my own inferences how people work. I'm doing this for solely my own benefit, but also spreading information to hopefully influence people's behavior and thoughts with new information. I'm not trying to be malicious, just trying to supply information. I know how hard it is to gather appropriate information in a simple format. This term has been on the tip of my tongue all day and for the life of me I can't remember it. With that specific term I can open a can of information that originally took hours to surf out on the internet.... Cognitive Dissonance, just remembered it, cool
I don't mean harm or bad intent, peace.
i know you mean no harm. i dont either. i just bristled when you belittled formal education. there is nothing laughable or arbitrary about someone with a phd. they earned that degree and have the skills to back it up. you have a different set of knowledge and skills and that's ok. it's only when you seem to be trying to imply that higher education is pointless and your knowledge is superior that i take umbrage. try telling tremorvoid that the biology phd she spent 10 years pursuing was a waste of time and that you know as much about her field becos you spent 2 weeks reading books as she learned about it in 10 years.
i also think you and angelica should get married