Article on reincarnation

[Maeght]

That actually made me laugh.

IIRC he once claimed to have had a scientific education but.... well, I dunno... maybe he did and he's forgotten a lot...

Yes, quite funny that.

[Sriram]

I thought sririam was a scientist in his professional life ; could be wrong about that I suppose.

Hi Robbie...

Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's.  After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring.  That's my little CV. 

But don't take these guys here seriously.     They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety.  They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information.  I have seen worse on here! 

If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Hi Robbie...

Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's.  After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring.  That's my little CV. 

But don't take these guys here seriously.     They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety.  They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information.  I have seen worse on here! 

If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/

Cheers.

Sriram

Ah that old chestnut - if you have no answers you can always fall back on trying to denigrate your opponents.  Speaks volumes, that.

[Maeght]

Hi Robbie...

Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's.  After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring.  That's my little CV. 

But don't take these guys here seriously.     They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety.  They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information.  I have seen worse on here! 

If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/

Cheers.

Sriram

To be fair to you Sriram, having looked at the 'conversations' about evolution your blog, although somewhat cringe worthy in style I feel, the first conversation shows reasonable understanding. Much more than you normally reflect on here. The second conversation though contains mostly your beliefs and views with little or no basis in fact, only personal opinion. I have no issue with speculation, as I have said many times, but I do have issue with presenting speculation as fact or 'obvious'.  If you were able to recognise what you post as being speculation, and to respect those who don't have the same speculative thought rather than denigrating them and presenting yourself as somehow a superior thinker, things on here would be more constructive and interesting.

Enjoy your day

Maeght

[Stranger]

To be fair to you Sriram, having looked at the 'conversations' about evolution your blog, although somewhat cringe worthy in style I feel, the first conversation shows reasonable understanding. Much more than you normally reflect on here.

Yes, it is a vast improvement on his posts here - Sriram, have you realized the error of your former ways?

It does still have the misunderstanding of Darwin's comparison of natural selection with artificial selection, though.

The second conversation though contains mostly your beliefs and views with little or no basis in fact, only personal opinion. I have no issue with speculation, as I have said many times, but I do have issue with presenting speculation as fact or 'obvious'.

More classic Sriram. While I agree that some of it would class as speculation, other parts are misleading or just wrong.

For example:
"But regardless of whether Epigenetics itself is sufficient to explain active adaptations to changing environments or not, is besides the point. There has to be something that enables adaptations and  progression."

The "something" that "enables adaptations and progression" is called "natural selection" - which calls into question the apparent understanding shown in the first conversation.

Then we have the idea of a "life force" which seems to be a giant leap backwards to the long dead notion of vitalism. There is much evidence that life is 'just' complicated chemistry - there is no open question that would require a "life force" as an answer.

And it still contains the nonsense about dark matter and energy, and...

[Sriram]

Ah...you guys visited my site!  (I suspect you wanted to have a good chuckle and some more ammunition for your 'discussions' here). But I am glad you liked it. Thanks guys!  Nice of you! 

I know I understand much of science. I never had any doubts on that.....regardless of what you guys here might think.   The first article on the 'Conversations' is meant precisely to present evolution as it is. The second part is meant to outline my opinions and views on it (a little longish I think....I'll cut it down soon) .

I stand by all that I have said in the second part.

1. Everything evolves including man made products, civilizations, technologies etc. Just as intelligence and intent are involved in all these examples...so also biological evolution  would have intelligence to guide it.  'Evolution' does not have to automatically mean 'chance'. This random stuff doesn't gel with me.

I agree that in the early days that would be the only way Christian beliefs could have been kept at bay...but much water has flowed since then. We need to think laterally.

2. 'Life' could be an amorphous thing of some sort that injects life into organic molecules, the same way electricity powers all our equipment. It cannot be an'emergent property' of some chemicals.

3. Complexity and all ''Emergent Properties' cannot be products of random variations. Progression is evident. There has to be some sort of Intelligence/consciousness  involved.

4. Natural Selection as it is currently presented, is just a metaphor. It is not a real process and has no law or predictability. I believe that Nature actually 'selects' traits through some kind of intelligent process. Neo Lamarckism might give us some ideas in the coming years.

I agree lot of questions are left unanswered but much less so than under the current understanding.

Ok...cheers guys. Nothing more to say.

Sriram

[Stranger]

Ah...you guys visited my site!  (I suspect you wanted to have a good chuckle and some more ammunition for your 'discussions' here). But I am glad you liked it. Thanks guys!  Nice of you! 

Not sure 'liked' is quite the word, but it wasn't for the first time - I'm always curious if people offer a website link. I thought the piece on time was priceless: no such thing as time, only change. What had you been smoking, and can I get some?   

I know I understand much of science. I never had any doubts on that...

Yes, I rather think your lack of doubt is part of your problem - you simply ignore people who correct you, even on basic stuff that you could go away and check with independent sources for yourself. Personally, if I have any doubt at all and often if I don't, I check and double check, even if it's something I have recognised qualifications in.

1. Everything evolves including man made products, civilizations, technologies etc. Just as intelligence and intent are involved in all these examples...so also biological evolution  would have intelligence to guide it.  'Evolution' does not have to automatically mean 'chance'. This random stuff doesn't gel with me.

Conflating different meanings of a word is unhelpful and confusing to those who are not familiar with the concepts. Biological evolution is a distinct process that only has a superficial similarity with the other types of evolution you mention. Your insistence that biological evolution has an intelligence to guide it is (at the very best) a baseless guess.

Strangely, whether something 'gels' with you is not evidence and has nothing to do with science. Reality is under no obligation to be appealing to you or anybody else.

I agree that in the early days that would be the only way Christian beliefs could have been kept at bay...but much water has flowed since then. We need to think laterally.

I have no idea why you think keeping Christian beliefs at bay has anything to do with the science. The evidence for the mechanism of random variation and natural selection has only grown. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't mean that there is a need for science to change its approach.

2. 'Life' could be an amorphous thing of some sort that injects life into organic molecules, the same way electricity powers all our equipment. It cannot be an'emergent property' of some chemicals.

What for? What would it do? The evidence is that life is just chemistry - a flat contradiction of that is not an argument or evidence.

3. Complexity and all ''Emergent Properties' cannot be products of random variations. Progression is evident. There has to be some sort of Intelligence/consciousness  involved.

Baseless assertion.

4. Natural Selection as it is currently presented, is just a metaphor. It is not a real process and has no law or predictability.

Simply untrue.

I believe that Nature actually 'selects' traits through some kind of intelligent process. Neo Lamarckism might give us some ideas in the coming years.

Your beliefs are irrelevant unless you have some evidence or reasoning to back them up. Presenting this sort of belief as anything but personal opinions that contradict the conclusions of evidence based science, is dishonest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That actually made me laugh.

IIRC he once claimed to have had a scientific education but.... well, I dunno... maybe he did and he's forgotten a lot...

What, the antitheism bit or the scientism part?

[Stranger]

...antitheism ... scientism...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Walter]

Hi Robbie...

Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's.  After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring.  That's my little CV. 

But don't take these guys here seriously.     They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety.  They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information.  I have seen worse on here! 

If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/

Cheers.

Sriram

there's an important difference in getting a degree in physics and actually understanding it .Your posts demonstrate the latter .

[Maeght]

Ah...you guys visited my site!  (I suspect you wanted to have a good chuckle and some more ammunition for your 'discussions' here). But I am glad you liked it. Thanks guys!  Nice of you! 

Didn't say I liked it either. I have looked at your blog before and find it somewhat irritating that you present yourself as an expert on this or that when yiu aren't, you are just putting up your opinions and beliefs.

I know I understand much of science. I never had any doubts on that.....regardless of what you guys here might think.   The first article on the 'Conversations' is meant precisely to present evolution as it is.

Such confidence. I have a simioar background but would never claim to understsnd much of science. The scientific principle and the meaning of words such as evuidence, hypothesis, theory and the like, yes, but not much of science.

The second part is meant to outline my opinions and views on it (a little longish I think....I'll cut it down soon) .

Then you should make it clear that it is yiur opinion and views and that you ar not qualified in the field of evolution and not a guru.

I stand by all that I have said in the second part.

Of course you do.

I won't go through the points as Stranger has addressed them all very well.