RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Academic Credials Argument, Informal Survey of Posteres< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,09:20   

Engrs          Biologists


Math                   35 hrs          Biologist/Evolutionist
Chemistry              7
Physics                25
Materials                3
Dynamics               3
Statics                   4
Strength Of Mat's    4
Electrical Science     3
Electronics              3
Classical Mechanics  3
Arcs and Plasmas     3
Thermo Physics        3
Physical Phemistry    4
Biology                    0
Zoology                   0    
Geology                   0    
Palenotology            0
Modern Physics         3
Electrical Circuits      3
Electronics               3

Could the evos fill the blanks as representative to their HARD sciences. Please impress me but remember the cirricula are all on line at various colleges.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,10:24   

Biochemistry – 8 years

Biophysics – 3 years

Microbiology – 5 years

Analytical Chemistry – 6 years

Molecular Biology – 5 years

:D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
jxs



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,00:13   

We all know you are proud of your engineering degrees -- and justifiably so -- but certainly you do realize that this is a remarkably juvenile "argument" you're making, right?

You are not, in general, chatting with a few mediocre biology BA grads here. You are trying to argue against millions of physicists, chemists, engineers, and biologists.

I assume your engineering degrees at least touched on system control theory, yes? Perhaps you should read a bit John Doyle's work (he's at Caltech, for googling help). The origin of "advanced technology" -- similarities between designed and natural complex systems.

In a nutshell: intelligent processes make complex things through predicition; non-intelligent processes just throw things at the wall and see what sticks. The end result is the same, regarding the apparent complexity of the systems. A lack of intelligence in "design" just means more fatalities.

An actual engineer, with a doctorate and everything, arguing against your mindless dogmatism. Whatever will you do?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,05:14   

Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto. My purpose is that in the current arena the more robust and wide spectrum studies of the advanced degreed engineer is more likely to have a realistic grasp of all the science, math, physical laws etc, regarding evolution than the most outspoken, most committed evolutionists. Yet the credentials of engineers are insultingly belittled regarding math, physics, chemistry , thermo, materials in addition to the life science where they ARE the least trained as though thats all that matters.

Thanks for your Intellectual Honesty.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,10:58   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 04 2005,10:14)
Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto. My purpose is that in the current arena the more robust and wide spectrum studies of the advanced degreed engineer is more likely to have a realistic grasp of all the science, math, physical laws etc, regarding evolution than the most outspoken, most committed evolutionists. Yet the credentials of engineers are insultingly belittled regarding math, physics, chemistry , thermo, materials in addition to the life science where they ARE the least trained as though thats all that matters.

Thanks for your Intellectual Honesty.

I am not belittling engineers.  But their grasp of biology is no better, and frequently worse, than my grasp of engineering

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,11:12   

I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own disclipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,08:44   

Quote
Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto.

'You're just wrong is all.'

:p

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,09:16   

Quote (GCT @ Oct. 06 2005,13:44)
Quote
Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto.

'You're just wrong is all.'

:p

He forgot physics I had to learn to do biophysics, and I forgot to mention all the years in the bioprocessing industries, working on the engineering of food and beverage production.  And I forgot to mention the years I spent on the Advisory Committee for a State University Engineering School.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,07:37   

Had a hard time holding a job huh?

Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Bur then that's obvious to anyone reading your sophmoric posts and watching me cram them up your nose continually... and please stop whining its so unbecoming to a grownup.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,08:16   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 07 2005,12:37)
Had a hard time holding a job huh?

Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Bur then that's obvious to anyone reading your sophmoric posts and watching me cram them up your nose continually... and please stop whining its so unbecoming to a grownup.

:D

What a peach!  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2005,07:28   

Well, let's see.  Against my better judgment, I'll join this thread.  ;)

Undergrad:  B.S. (1979) in Materials Science and Engineering (MIT), including courses in thermodynamics, solid mechanics,  metallurgical and ceramic science, and the usual math and physics courses.  Being an engineering major made me realize that I really should have been a biologist, something I didn't pursue until some years later.  Incidentally, I didn't study evolution at all as an engineering major, for the same reason that most biologists don't take a course in metallurgy.  I believe that MIT has since instituted a life-sciences requirement for all students, but this requirement was not in place in the 1970s.  However, I do understand and remember enough about thermodynamics to recognize the old claim that "evolution violates the second law" as complete nonsense.  That's the single specific contribution that my engineering education made to my later study of evolutionary biology.

Graduate:  M.S. (1994) and Ph.D. (2002) in Biological Sciences (Western Michigan University).  I took courses in entomology (my main interest), systematic botany, invertebrate zoology, ornithology, physical anthropology, biochemistry, genetics, animal and plant physiology, population ecology, evolution, prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell biology, animal behavior, and statistics.  I also took some specialized entomology and cognate courses at Michigan State, as well as a seminar in philosophy of science.  My M.S. research project was in chemical ecology; my Ph.D. dissertation described an unusual adaptation to inbreeding in a solitary wasp species, as shown by a field study, multiple breeding experiments, and genetic testing.  The latter yielded three publications plus a couple of technical notes.

I'm currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Rochester, where I study insect-<i>Wolbachia</i> interactions.  (<i>Wolbachia</i> are bacteria that infect insects and are usually transmitted vertically -- from mother to offspring -- and use a variety of mechanisms to skew the sex ratio of an infected mother's offspring for the bacteria's own benefit.)

So far, to paraphrase the late Prof. Dobzhansky, it all makes sense in the light of evolution.  

And I also know how to spell "credentials".   :D

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,03:42   

Wow Julie,

You have taken every course in evowork known all biased 100% toyour world view and your brain is surely as washed as they get.

Thermodynamics does in deed war againt certain aspects of evolution if some honesty could prevail in your camp.

1) No on claims that flowthrough systems cannot be kept far from equiblrium by continually supplying energy which has been transduced from say the sun's light energy... so long as all the conversion, rectification etc. mechanisms are in place. It turns out such systems/processes are extremely involved and complex as in photosynthesis which was sure as #### not around when life and evolution were started or anything remotely like it.

2)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,04:18   

Julie continued,

2) Evos have finally figured out the proper definitions of open, closed, isolated and flowthrough systems after three decades so its almost possible to talk to them about thermo.

3) See its still stupidity to make the ever continuing argument from evos that as long as the entropy of the universe gets larger because of star formation or some totally disconnected activity in a galaxy far far away.

4) You might as well tell me that the probability of a beach ball flying up because all the air molecules moved up simultaneously. But its ok because simultaneously a supernove exploded somewhere it all balanced out.

4) Try this pick a rose from your garden, lay in the sun. Now with all that sun energy will it grow and bud and live,or just get hot, wither and be dead as a door nail.


Laughable

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,07:51   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 10 2005,09:18)
4) Try this pick a rose from your garden, lay in the sun. Now with all that sun energy will it grow and bud and live,or just get hot, wither and be dead as a door nail.


I think you answered that yourself in your previous post, item 1). Your point being..?

  
VoR



Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,11:18   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 10 2005,08:42)
You have taken every course in evowork known all biased 100% toyour world view and your brain is surely as washed as they get.


So...you start a post about academic credentials to show everyone how smart you are, then when others show that they have extensive knowledge of the subject matter discussed in these fora, you dismiss their education as brainwashing.


I was at the beach once, it was a very windy day, and we had a beachball. I was holding it, when all of a sudden, it was blown out of my hands, and moved upwards a good three-quarter metre before falling down. #### those supernovae!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:44   

Yes your belief in the mystereous kinetica of beachballs is roughly equivalent to the evos belief that abiogenesis and early evolution occurred without photosynthesis or such by the star formation entropy balance... or was it a very "simple" form of photosynthesis.. like protocells and clay proteins and well you get it.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:53   

Evopeach

And your alternative theory is...

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,16:37   

If the act of studying a subject in a classroom setting could effect "brainwashing" in the student, I'd be an engineer today.  ;-)

As for understanding some of the -- er, subtleties of why and how a dead plant and a live one behave differently:  You might start with the transpiration-cohesion-tension model of water transport.  Up-front warning:  This will require you to read a botany text, and if it's on the exam, it'll probably be an essay question.  

"...Helmholtz brought out his collection of lacquered butterflies, which caused him to become petulant when he realized they would not fly."  (Conversations with Helmholtz, Woody Allen)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,20:08   

I'm still shocked that even an engineer would think the universe is mostly helium. Even after posting a link to an article that quite clearly states that the primordial H/He ratio was approximately 9/1 (with a few trace elements thrown in for variety). Did he read his own link?

This guy's a joke, right? A pro-evolution guy just having some laughs at our expense?

(And not that there's anything wrong with being an engineer.)

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,16:54   

BTW:  No complaints about engineers intended or implied, Eric.  I certainly wasn't cut out to be one, but I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time socializing with engineers!  (Then again, my husband, who has always had astounding aptitude for the kinds of things that engineers do, went to med school instead.  Go figure!;)

-- Julie

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:28   

Pne more time for Eric and Julie who apparently can't read. I never, never implied that Helium was the abundant element in the universe except for the first moments in the BB theory and that is a matter of accepted theory unless you are one of the attendant idiots who believe that a proton is the same thing as a hydroden atom because electrons are not part of atoms and are actually illusory non-existant and unimportant particles.

If you do subscribe to the rather well established idea that electrons are necessary patrsd of atoms and not just the nucleus then you will read the several references or any reputable physics site on the BB and note that Helium was created as an ATOM not just an elementary particle and it preceeded atomic hydrogen (not just the nucleus proton). Hydrogen existed only as the isotope duterium and according to the same papers in lesser amounts than Helium. Lithium was a trace element.

Now very shortly after the "first few minutes" hydrogen atoms in toto were formed in enourmous quantity and still comprise 70% plus of all matter today.

If you can show me where I sais helium was the major constituent of the universe to day I will recant that , but you never will be able to do so.. period.

Electrons are part of the atom ... try to remember that fact.

As to brainwashing the engineers are brainwashed on real practical implementable knowledge and how the real world actually works. We spend very little time disproving the existence the God, polishing three teeth to prove an ape could walk upright or that life came from clay gumbies.

The most closeminded people in the universe are evos because they refuse to permit the public to clearly see their flaws or even hear alternative explanations of life.

You surely are the most vicious and intellectually dishonest clan in the rhealm of science.

Of course youy missed the point entirely on the plant. It is not the understanding of how a plant thrives it is rather the understanding how such could evolve from non-life without all the complexities in place to harness the suns energy, etc.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,07:41   

Quote
Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Mr. Peach, mite your sweeping academic credentials and broad real world experience be more advanced than ours in say, the English language, spelling, grammar, and typing skills?

Quote
...it is rather the understanding how such could evolve from non-life without all the complexities in place to harness the suns energy, etc.

Do bacteria harness the energy of the sun? Do mammals?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,08:19   

Ved,

I have graciously consented to let the otherewise depressed and intellectually lightfooted evos excel in typing, spellchecker, grammar lexicon and carying pi out to 13 places rather than my usual 4. This is in keeping with their nitpicking, wireheaded mental apparatus. Thus they will have something to preen their scales ,I mean feathers, about.

Actually animals use biomass through the intricate digestive sequences to obtain the energetic calories they require for life. Of course most of that biomass is in turn dependent on plants or other animals that in turn depend on plantlife. So it turns out photosynthesis is quite important to life in general. Is this a new concept to your team?

Am I becoming the pedagog for the biologists as well here... I must talk to my CPA about in kind contributions for tax purposes considering the hours of education I have given to evos this year.

I must remind them someday of the fallacy of form over substance... but them what would they have left to say.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,12:25   

Ahh, how could I forget, language skills are just so beneath you. But hey, if you don't care about the words you type, why should anyone else?

Thanks for the edjoocation. Right, so it seems that many animals as well as plants rely on photosynthesis to sustain life. Photosynthesis makes available a very valuable energy source, and has been around for a long time. Long enough for many forms of life, especially the ones we see everyday, to become dependant upon it. But is it necessary for any forms of life at all to exist?

Just for a lark I went to the Wikipedia page for biological life, and there's no mention at all of the word photosynthesis. What gives? Maybe that's because it's not a requirement for "life in general" (meaning ALL life), but merely a requirement many forms of life that we see here and now.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,12:41   

Tube worms don't use photosynthesis...thermal vents provide
the nutrients they need. The depths they live at prevent any
light from reaching them.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,04:26   

Photosynthesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Leaf." The primary site of photosynthesis in plants.Photosynthesis is an important biochemical process in which plants, algae, and some bacteria harness the energy of sunlight to produce food. Ultimately, nearly all living things depend on energy produced from photosynthesis for their nourishment, making it vital to life on Earth. It is also responsible for producing the oxygen that makes up a large portion of the Earth's atmosphere. Organisms that produce energy through photosynthesis are called phototrophs."

Is there another group of evos somewhere wou are technically literate because the level of ignorance diplayed herein is so appalling I am getting depressed about the opportunity for continued scientific progress.

Than goodness for the tube worms. LOL

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:36   

Evopeach

If you have Adobe reader, have a look at this PDF file. It covers a lot of the points about early evolution, symbiogenesis etc.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:03   

Alan,
That link didn't work for me.

Henry

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:10   

Quote
Than goodness for the tube worms. LOL

Thank you for acknowledging the existence of a life form not dependent on photosynthesis, making the rest of your post irrelevant. See how Wiki agrees with me where it uses the word nearly? Notice also how they use the present tense. They are not talking about the life on earth that existed before photosynthesis evolved here. Certainly, at that time, 100.00% of life here was not dependent on photosynthesis, because it didn’t exist.

Understanding the Origin of Photosynthesis

Interestingly, it seems that photosynthesis first appeared in a purple bacteria.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,06:10   

Sorry Henry

The full url is http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/research/bib/KooyHeng2005.pdf

Is that OK? Tried it myself a few times and the file download is offered.

Anyway, what are you doing slumming with the likes of Paley and Evo?

  
  89 replies since Oct. 03 2005,09:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]