oh I wasn't referring to you kevbo
I was referring to merry prankster Utopian, and this is not the only profile he writes from here
but in regards to you, so you were baptized Mormon huh? You were raised in the church, or just lived in Utah for a spell?
About Dawkins, yeah the language that the guys uses clearly states that his college degrees and scientific achievements were all honorary, he states classic misconceptions about evolution typical of those who went the other route in college, the American equivalent to Arts & Letters or at best psychology
statements that Utopian borrow from the novelist such as
" Evolution works but it isn't ideal because it can't go back to the drawing board or design things."
are based in ignorance
such statements are the result of a person having absolutely no knowledge of biological processes, no knowledge of cellular functions, do not comprehend the level of organization of cells and cellular development, cellular machinary, let alone how complicated the system requirements for regulation of differentiated cells that form organs.
Such ignorant statements are made be those with absolutely no knowledge of mechanics nor engineering, and if they did, they would realize that nearly every joint that is a part of our skeletal system is worlds apart (as in incomparably superior) from anything that any team of engineers can devise with the latest technology.
Dawkins is a popular psychological theorist, and spokesperson for the mirror image of the fundamental relgious crowd. Dawkins goes toe to toe with them and denial has just as firm of grip on his mind as it does the religious right wing.
both camps have no respect for the truth, are more than willing to fabricate data in very unscientific experiments and that sort of practice is exactly why the scientific community decided long ago that anything not published in reputable academic journals is garbage and not even worth looking into
Scientists have to trust other scientists because we depend on each other's reported information, no time to mess around with those who make claims from stretched versions of the truth.
Journalists and other publishers cannot understand the importance of following a strict method that leaves absolutely no room form cutting corners or bending rules
A perfect example is the Journal Nature, a once reputable research journal that has now stepped down into the realm of all the other media reporting publishers, yet they still are cited as references to psuedo-science experiments. The scientific community quit trusting the journal Nature in 1997. Peer review does not mean a debate, the truth is not debatable, and no legitimate graduate research programs at any university will base their work off of journals that are no longer considered reputable
Sure there are some psychology researchers who will use that garbage, but psychology is NOT part of the sciences departments at universities, and that is exactly what Dawkins's books are based on, he masquerades as if he is some scientist with knowledge of the mechanics of evolution. He is a psychology theorist who does not understand genetics, nor does he understand the extent that even molecular scientists fully grasp genetics.
The public has a waaaaay over-inflated perception of how well we understand gene expression. We can sequence the strands and we have identified the steps and machinery that carries out translation and transcription, but terms such as "gene" and "allele" and are in fact very vaguely defined genetic properties
Our knowledge or how their exact function and regulation has just barely begun the process of nailing it down, it is far more complicated than most people know
so while your comment is comical and I appreciate it , I have little respect for attitudes such as Utopians (by any profile commented from) and I will gladly carry out these discussions until I banned from the site if anyone desires me to. But most people don't like facing the facts after running their mouth. So I guess we will just have to wait and see.
If the past is any indication he will likely just carry on eluding to responses without ever directly answering or discussing the topics he claims he would like challenged, it is the typical blogger who is only concerned with appearing to have the "last word" before determining that I am just not making any sense
as often is the case with those who believe correct grammar trumps everything, which it may in English Lit class of some Ivy League "science" course where they are practiced at debating the truth
When again, scientists do not debate the truth, as it is not debatable, peer review is a process wherein researchers help other researchers out to ensure that whatever findings they believe are preliminary, are real and can be used as another building block of truth
Last edited by Dirtclustit; 09-23-2013 at 08:37 AM.