Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 77
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,456
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    ok good, so now that it is clear to everyone you don't believe I'm in med school, and that I could give a **** what you believe, can we just move forward now?
    Maybe because it's just too funny but since you don't care, it wouldn't matter anyway.
    Last edited by Freakazoid; 10-30-2012 at 07:29 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    ok, I guess what I was getting at is that in my mind there is a distinct difference between adaptation vs speciation. But I see now that in TOE it is all kinda the same. So in my mind it seemed a misnomer to call bacterial resistance evolution, but according to TOE it is indeed correct, because I do agree that adaptation and natural selection are playing a role in resistance.
    I'd say bacterial resistance is a facet of evolution, but it isn't all of it. Evolution doesn't only happen through mutation, as has been pointed out.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,250
    vCash
    1500
    NN, I don't claim to know whether you're in med school or not. I'm willing to take your word for it for the sake of our discussions here.

    So if so, and I don't want to be condescending here, but I really hope you get with it, man. A doctor not believing in evolution is like a physicist not believing in gravity, and that is not exaggeration or hyperbole. It's a foundational premise of what the entire body of medical science is built upon.

    Let's set aside for now the facts or evidence of evolution. What concerns me more is that your thinking seems to be pretty unscientific. For example, some of the phrases you used in your reply to me on the previous page:

    I'm sure there's more to it, so I'm not trying to say this as a complete cop out, but why isn't any emphasis put on this information when compared to your original statement?
    how confident can we be of the knowledge we derive from it?
    But science always seems to kind of push it to the side. Why do I hear time and time again
    I get this feeling that with many things regarding evolution, science only gives one side of the story. I believe the STRENGTH of certain evidence is somewhat falsified.
    Based on statements like these, its seems to me that you may not have an adequate understanding of how the scientific process works, including critical stages such as peer review, the reproducibility of experiments, the importance of consensus in the scientific literature over time. When you say something like, "Why isn't any emphasis put on this information...?" you're implying that scientists have a proactive agenda of promoting certain outcomes. The fact that you could believe this, to me demonstrates that you don't understand the checks and balances in the process that marginalize scientists who are fudging results or, generally speaking, doing bad science. Ulitimately, their careers don't survive the scrutiny.

    Great example is Fleischmann and Pons and cold fusion. What outcome of any scientific experiment could be more desirable than a practially limitless energy supply? Everyone - including scientists, of course - would wish that this were truly achievable technology. But it didn't take long for the process to shake things out and prove those guys wrong.

    You pose a lot of vague questions and innuendos ("I get this feeling that with many things regarding evolution, science only gives one side of the story") which to me seem crafted -- deliberately or not -- to raise a specter of doubt about evolution as we now have (rightfully) about cold fusion, but what you don't do is back it up.

    The team that claimed cold fusion made falsifiable hypotheses with ultimately were, in fact, falsified.

    The theory of evolution, too, makes plenty of falsifiable hypotheses. So where's the beef? Why hasn't any scientist won his or her Nobel Prize for disproving evolution yet?

    Asking questions, doubting, that's fine. But to continue to doubt despite overwhelming evidence, that's denying reality.

    Not that conviction should ever be, or is, 100% in science. It's always provisional, and pending further discoveries. But evolution is so well established and supported by evidence at this point, that it's simply one of those things in science -- such as the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun -- which we now understand much too conclusively for it plausibly to ever be overturned by new evidence.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,768
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    NN, I don't claim to know whether you're in med school or not. I'm willing to take your word for it for the sake of our discussions here.
    It's not even important, I brought it up one time a while ago cuz a thread on health care came up and I was just letting people know of some things I've heard and so I let them know in which setting I heard it. Apparently dude made a dupe account and wants to try n call me out on it, that's the only reason anyone's talking about it in here. It has nothing to do with nothing and I'd rather no one really pay mind to what I'm doing with my life cuz it really makes no difference as far as psd is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    So if so, and I don't want to be condescending here, but I really hope you get with it, man. A doctor not believing in evolution is like a physicist not believing in gravity, and that is not exaggeration or hyperbole. It's a foundational premise of what the entire body of medical science is built upon.



    Let's set aside for now the facts or evidence of evolution. What concerns me more is that your thinking seems to be pretty unscientific. For example, some of the phrases you used in your reply to me on the previous page:


    well, these phrases reflect what I've seen from experts on evolution and even professors of evolution (I've seen some online classes in which professors are addressing a class full of students). Is it wrong that I pointed that out?





    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    Based on statements like these, its seems to me that you may not have an adequate understanding of how the scientific process works, including critical stages such as peer review, the reproducibility of experiments, the importance of consensus in the scientific literature over time. When you say something like, "Why isn't any emphasis put on this information...?" you're implying that scientists have a proactive agenda of promoting certain outcomes. The fact that you could believe this, to me demonstrates that you don't understand the checks and balances in the process that marginalize scientists who are fudging results or, generally speaking, doing bad science. Ulitimately, their careers don't survive the scrutiny.

    Great example is Fleischmann and Pons and cold fusion. What outcome of any scientific experiment could be more desirable than a practially limitless energy supply? Everyone - including scientists, of course - would wish that this were truly achievable technology. But it didn't take long for the process to shake things out and prove those guys wrong.

    You pose a lot of vague questions and innuendos ("I get this feeling that with many things regarding evolution, science only gives one side of the story") which to me seem crafted -- deliberately or not -- to raise a specter of doubt about evolution as we now have (rightfully) about cold fusion, but what you don't do is back it up.

    The team that claimed cold fusion made falsifiable hypotheses with ultimately were, in fact, falsified.

    The theory of evolution, too, makes plenty of falsifiable hypotheses. So where's the beef? Why hasn't any scientist won his or her Nobel Prize for disproving evolution yet?
    I'm actually pretty curious about this, the only thing I've really heard that could falsify it is fossils being found in strata, or whatever, that is out of line with what evolution predicts. Although at the same time, I've heard that evolution doesn't have to necessarily have to go from simple to more complex, so I don't really know where that leaves my first sentence. But either way, I do want to know what different things would be considered falsifiable hypothesis. Maybe this will help me understand why it is considered to be obviously true by so many people.

    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    Asking questions, doubting, that's fine. But to continue to doubt despite overwhelming evidence, that's denying reality.
    I guess, could be, like I've said a few times I'm not legit schooled on this. Dead up I never learned about evolution in any kinda school setting, high school, college, nada. I just started teaching myself a few years ago. I'm looking forward to some more of these threads, whenever they come by, I know its not easy or quick to post such threads

    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    Not that conviction should ever be, or is, 100% in science. It's always provisional, and pending further discoveries. But evolution is so well established and supported by evidence at this point, that it's simply one of those things in science -- such as the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun -- which we now understand much too conclusively for it plausibly to ever be overturned by new evidence.
    I don't think so. If it were that obvious, wouldn't the same amount of people that believe the earth revolves around the sun also believe evolution to be fact?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    I don't think so. If it were that obvious, wouldn't the same amount of people that believe the earth revolves around the sun also believe evolution to be fact?
    Unfortunately, there aren't really religious implications to what the earth revolves around (at least, not anymore), so the motivation to try and deny it is not nearly as strong as it is for evolution.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,768
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Unfortunately, there aren't really religious implications to what the earth revolves around (at least, not anymore), so the motivation to try and deny it is not nearly as strong as it is for evolution.
    I have come across this idea of "geocentric earth", which from the very little bit I've read about apparently has biblical basis. I don't really know much about it, but from the very little surface level amount I've seen this is apparently the case.

    hah, why u say unfortunately?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,456
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    It's not even important, I brought it up one time a while ago cuz a thread on health care came up and I was just letting people know of some things I've heard and so I let them know in which setting I heard it. Apparently dude made a dupe account and wants to try n call me out on it, that's the only reason anyone's talking about it in here. It has nothing to do with nothing and I'd rather no one really pay mind to what I'm doing with my life cuz it really makes no difference as far as psd is concerned.
    I brought it up because I find it pretty funny that you would make such a ridiculous claim and yet lack the prerequisite knowledge to at least make it marginally believable.

    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    I guess, could be, like I've said a few times I'm not legit schooled on this. Dead up I never learned about evolution in any kinda school setting, high school, college, nada. I just started teaching myself a few years ago. I'm looking forward to some more of these threads, whenever they come by, I know its not easy or quick to post such threads
    You do realize that general biology (evolution is most definitely part of the curriculum) is a prerequisite course for medical school and that the MCAT requires prerequisite knowledge of evolution. Not to mention the fact that evolution and phylogeny are prerequisite concepts required to understand basic first year medical courses such as embryology, cell biology, histology, mammalian physiology etc.
    Last edited by Freakazoid; 11-01-2012 at 07:39 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,768
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakazoid View Post
    I brought it up because I find it pretty funny that you would make such a ridiculous claim and yet lack the prerequisite knowledge to at least make it marginally believable.



    You do realize that general biology (evolution is most definitely part of the curriculum) is a prerequisite course for medical school and that the MCAT requires prerequisite knowledge of evolution. Not to mention the fact that evolution and phylogeny are prerequisite concepts required to understand basic first year medical courses such as embryology, cell biology, histology, mammalian physiology etc.
    really? maybe I just attend med school in my head then. and since i passed step 1, yet apparently can't understand any of it without knowledge of evolution, then my step 1 score must only exist in my head too. and since i joined this website since i've started med, then maybe this whole website also is just in my head. which would kinda make you just a figment of my imagination then, wouldn't it. go away figment

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,456
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    really? maybe I just attend med school in my head then. and since i passed step 1, yet apparently can't understand any of it without knowledge of evolution, then my step 1 score must only exist in my head too. and since i joined this website since i've started med, then maybe this whole website also is just in my head. which would kinda make you just a figment of my imagination then, wouldn't it. go away figment
    Right, because lying is just so insanely hard. In fact, no one ever lies on the internet.

    BTW, phylogeny and evolution (i.e genetic drift) are testable concepts on the USMLE.
    Last edited by Freakazoid; 11-01-2012 at 09:33 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,768
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakazoid View Post
    Right, because lying is just so insanely hard. In fact, no one ever lies on the internet.
    are we back on the topic of ur dupe account?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,456
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    are we back on the topic of ur dupe account?
    I love how you're changing the subject but ok.

    Tu quoque
    Last edited by Freakazoid; 11-02-2012 at 02:34 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,768
    vCash
    1500
    ohh yea, u got me. U got me there bud. Not only did you figure out my bs story about my school, but you also noticed how I tried to entirely change the subject in hopes that no one would remember what we were talking about. MAN, u are a sharp one. I'll tell you that. I thought I was sharp, but wow, not compared to you.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Oh my god, shut up. I'd like to not have these threads locked over stupid ********.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,768
    vCash
    1500
    really? this thread is really going to be locked over what I said? really? or did you just want to vent? be real. vent. Its all good.

    ur not the only one that can go from 0 to a-hole in 2 seconds

    ^^btw, word #3 is in direct violation of rule #2. You might wanna watch it, last thing we want to happen is for the thread to get locked

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    I wasn't only talking to you, which is why I didn't quote you - or anyone else - when I said that.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •