Facts and Opinions (Karyotype Discussion)

[Gman]

Jack,

I'm sorry, but I too am going to side with Bart on this... I'm a Christian and a creationist, but certain facts are facts. If they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny then they need to be abandoned... If we press certain points that don't have any validity, it actually hurts the cause for creationism and ID.. And turns it into a mockery.. Be careful..

As noted, certain aspects of mirco-evolution cannot be refuted..

Can you please list other "well known" scientists that backup your claim? What are your sources? Real science is not a one man show...

God bless..

[Gman]

Jack,

Here is but one example from your clause... This was refuted way back..

You stated: "polyploidy is only relevant to plants"

This is simply not true...

Polyploidy occurs in some animals, such as goldfish, salmon, and salamanders, but is especially common among ferns and flowering plants, including both wild and cultivated species. Wheat, for example, after millennia of hybridization and modification by humans, has strains that are diploid (two sets of chromosomes), tetraploid (four sets of chromosomes) with the common name of durum or macaroni wheat, and hexaploid (six sets of chromosomes) with the common name of bread wheat. Many agriculturally important plants of the genus Brassica are also tetraploids; their relationship is described by the Triangle of U.

Source Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

Now don't make the creationists come after you too..

Blessings..

G -

[Kurieuo]

But then... where do they say "intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life..."

This is one area I think Wikipedia entirely misrepresents the Discovery Institute. When I previously read Wikipedia's whole page on Intelligent Design several months ago I strongly reacted to it and thought it belonged on the garbage heap. While Wikipedia is an easily accessible online resource, it showed me how poor they really can be as a resource and it put me off them. I certainly see this above statement you quoted of theirs misrepresents the Discovery Institude, and therefore I think it belongs on the garbage heap. I know I've come across strong, but I do not mean to cause offense. I just feel strongly whenever I see misreprestations of ID such as at Wikipedia.

Kurieuo

You're right on both points.

Wiki is valuable in some regards, but it is even more susceptible to common bias than most sites. Anyone can do anything they want without regard to educations or qualifications.

I think they've misrepresented ID to some extend as well, even though, I believe you and I hold a little different perspective on some elements of it.

Just in relationship to this discussion again. I just came across the following, which reinforces my opinion that Wikipedia is indeed biased against ID, and as such, would misrepresent it:

On this episode of IDTF we bring to your attention the bias against intelligent design that runs through Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is becoming a prominent website for people to turn to for information about all manner of subjects. It's unique twist is that it lets web browses update and correct entries. Except about intelligent design or evolution. The site is full of basic inaccuracies that have little or nothing to do with the actual debate over evolution and design. And, when it comes to their information regarding the theories, it is squarely opposed to telling the truth, siding with the worst evolution arguments out there. To make matters worse, these entries are forbidden to be changed, updated or corrected by design supporters.

Is Wikipedia Accurate or Balanced? Not About Intelligent design

[godslanguage]

But then... where do they say "intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life..."

This is one area I think Wikipedia entirely misrepresents the Discovery Institute. When I previously read Wikipedia's whole page on Intelligent Design several months ago I strongly reacted to it and thought it belonged on the garbage heap. While Wikipedia is an easily accessible online resource, it showed me how poor they really can be as a resource and it put me off them. I certainly see this above statement you quoted of theirs misrepresents the Discovery Institude, and therefore I think it belongs on the garbage heap. I know I've come across strong, but I do not mean to cause offense. I just feel strongly whenever I see misreprestations of ID such as at Wikipedia.

Kurieuo

You're right on both points.

Wiki is valuable in some regards, but it is even more susceptible to common bias than most sites. Anyone can do anything they want without regard to educations or qualifications.

I think they've misrepresented ID to some extend as well, even though, I believe you and I hold a little different perspective on some elements of it.

Just in relationship to this discussion again. I just came across the following, which reinforces my opinion that Wikipedia is indeed biased against ID, and as such, would misrepresent it:

On this episode of IDTF we bring to your attention the bias against intelligent design that runs through Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is becoming a prominent website for people to turn to for information about all manner of subjects. It's unique twist is that it lets web browses update and correct entries. Except about intelligent design or evolution. The site is full of basic inaccuracies that have little or nothing to do with the actual debate over evolution and design. And, when it comes to their information regarding the theories, it is squarely opposed to telling the truth, siding with the worst evolution arguments out there. To make matters worse, these entries are forbidden to be changed, updated or corrected by design supporters.

Is Wikipedia Accurate or Balanced? Not About Intelligent design

Probably because evolutionists/darwinists are running the show, no?

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/ ... 6_31-07_00

[David Blacklock]

From a blub in "New Scientist" magazine:

WIKI'S little sister hits the 'shelves'

Have you ever wondered whether contributors to Wikipeia really know what they are talking about?

People who prefer to know writers' credentials will welcome the pilot launch of Citizendium last week. This "fork" of Wikipedia is the brainchild of the online encyclopedia's co-founder Larry Sanger. Citizendium will invite accredited academics to edit its entries before publication. The site will be policed by "constables" to eject vandals, and will not accept anonymous entries. Contributors can also continue adding to an article once it has been approved, but if any conflict arises over an entry, editors will have the final say.

Last year Wikipedia had to tighten its editorial rules, forcing users to register before creating new entries, in an effort to stamp out vandalism and the posting of deliberate misinformation.

[Canuckster1127]

From a blub in "New Scientist" magazine:

WIKI'S little sister hits the 'shelves'

Have you ever wondered whether contributors to Wikipeia really know what they are talking about?

People who prefer to know writers' credentials will welcome the pilot launch of Citizendium last week. This "fork" of Wikipedia is the brainchild of the online encyclopedia's co-founder Larry Sanger. Citizendium will invite accredited academics to edit its entries before publication. The site will be policed by "constables" to eject vandals, and will not accept anonymous entries. Contributors can also continue adding to an article once it has been approved, but if any conflict arises over an entry, editors will have the final say.

Last year Wikipedia had to tighten its editorial rules, forcing users to register before creating new entries, in an effort to stamp out vandalism and the posting of deliberate misinformation.

That is a good development.

I think Wiki overall is a pretty amazing site and does offer some good information.

I sure wouldn't provide them as a cite for an academic paper, however.

[Danny]

The work on Autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela) and the work on Dissipative Structures (Ilya Prigogine) demonstrate that evolution, far from being driven from behind (ie: building on what has gone before), is actually being 'drawn forward' to a final singular state of being (ie: God). In these works it has been demonstrated that, in terms of living systems - be they a cell, a person, a society or an ecosystem, the Structure (which so occupies the minds of reductionist Science) is actually secondary to, what is referred to as, the Pattern (the complete configuration of relationships that exist between the components of the Structure). As a living system grows more complex it reaches a point where it bifurcates (or evolves) into a more complex system and at each stage of bifurcation the options that are available to the system (ie: what it will evolve in to) reduce. Logically, there comes a point of penultimate complexity where the system has only one option to choose - to become God, the ultimate Pattern. A great book on this subject is Fritjof Capra's "The Web of Life"

[sandy_mcd]

Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?
As questions about the accuracy of the anyone-can-edit encyclopedia persist, academics are split on whether to ignore it, or start contributing.
by BROCK READ

Overall, Wikipedia seems to do quite well as an introduction to basic science, which is primarily what I use it for.

[Danny]

Sabaidee "an ape"
Not sure if your post was a response to my own but in your post subject you mentioned Autopoiesis and Dissipative Structures.
If so I'd like to make three points:
a) Love your forum name
b) Are you really located in Congo?
c) You have access to the net so check out the work of Mantura et al
PS - that site you mentioned was bizarre but somehow cool
Namaste