Genetic Paper Topics???

BLASPHEMER, WHAT DO YOU KNOW??????????

because wrote:

BLASPHEMER, WHAT DO YOU KNOW??????????

Nothing. And neither do you. And that's precisely the point. Scientists and evangelists alike have that in common. NO ONE knows what begat the universe. Magic fairy dust didn't do it and neither did a couple of mathematical constants.

Argument from ignorance

wellnow wrote:

...whilst Kenyans use their's to good effect.

"theirs"

SC Slim wrote:

Argument from ignorance

What you should have said is "Argument IS ignorance." Then you would have made a true statement. Whatever begat the universe transcends the constructs of the human mind, and attempts to work WITHIN the constraints of the mind to rationalize everything are fallacious.

Appeal To Complexity:

if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):

the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.

SC Slim wrote:

Appeal To Complexity:

if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):

the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.

So which one are you?

The "I know you are, but what am I" argument.

Now we've hit rock bottom.

SC Slim wrote:

The "I know you are, but what am I" argument.

Now we've hit rock bottom.

Trying to exhibit one's superiority by attempting to dissolve another's argument without stating one's own position and giving some type of corroboration is shallow, sophomoric, and especially transparent. Nice try, but simply saying someone else is wrong certainly does not make you right.

To get back to the OP's question: a paper on genetic differences in (average) IQ between ethnic groups is generally good for a laugh, and god knows you could find a plethora of sources (many of them legitimate) for your research...

SC Slim wrote:

Appeal To Complexity:

if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):

the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.

So which is it oh masterful one? C'mon SC slim, tell us exactly what begat the universe and what begat what begat the universe. Clearly you have all the answers and can simply condescend to the rest of us mere mortals who are arguing from ignorance because we don't have the same level of comprehension and are ignoring the FACTS. Enlighten us already.

Waiting...

Settle the debate already, Jesus. Pun intended.

Who said anything about programming?

The link between encapsulation and genesis dates from (but not much after) the 17th century. Put simply, it was the doctrine that all living beings that had ever existed, and ever would exist, had been miraculously contained in the generative organs of the living beings created in the garden of eden. This would have included adam, or eve, but not both. Encapsulation followed logically (but not, as we now of course know, biologically) from the preformationist view of heredity, which held that what passed between generations was the very thing itself not (as we would say now) the instructions for assembling that thing. Preformationists believed that, for example, a human sperm cell contained a complete miniature human being (homunculus). This of course was the "spermist" viewpoint; the ovists believed that eve's ovaries held all the people.

Look it up. It's interesting because it shows us how incorrect data (the homunculi, which some early microscopists thought they could see) can spawn long chains of interesting logical connections which have no relationship to biological reality. It's easy to see that if one accepts preformationism, then one is led quickly to something like encapsulation. Those old guys were often wrong, but I don't believe they were stupid.

So, the answer to my question lay in genesis, which is why I used that as a name.

If you're going to google, don't give up so quickly. Didn't it occur to you that if you kept finding references to database theory that you might not be on the right track? Going from a genetics paper to your rant about professors to my response to databases doesn't seem to me a very logical progression.

Evolution and religious faith coexist quite nicely among very many religous people (in the largest sense, including all world religions). What are indeed mutually exclusive are evolution and creation, if by that we mean creation as put forth by creationists.

For an interesting take on it, see today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?ref=science

And BTW, I am a college professor -- many years, many students...I'm not easily impressed.

Encapsulation is an easily disproved, pseudo-evolutionary concept of a bygone era as you yourself profess. So I will readily admit that I don't understand the basis of your question. Why is encapsulation even relevant or important (other than in linear programming) in so much as to accept a principle like it, one would have to disregard macro-gaps in evolution or even micro-gaps and the potential for RNA to both presage and morph into DNA?

SC Slim wrote:

Argument from ignorance

To make such a bold claim, one clearly understands what ignorance is. And to understand what ignorance is, one clearly also understands what ignorance isn't. And to understand what ignorance isn't while making a claim to know what ignorance is obligates one to articulate the difference. And yet, SC Slim, you fail to divulge one side of the equation. Why, since you are the one who offered an unsolicited critique to begin with.

It's not "pseudo-evolutionary" -- it's totally non-evolutionary. If you think it's in any way evolutionary, then you don't understand it. Ask yourself this: if everything was preformed and placed in reproductive organs at the time of creation, then how can new forms appear? Where is there room for change? Think about it.

Encapsulation is interesting because it shows us a particular way of thinking about the past and change that is extraordinary and -- I hope I made it clear -- is logical in the sense that it flows from the observation on which it was based. That observation was completely wrong, but in terms of learning about the past and the logical structures that inform us even in the present, it's not always important that some idea, or observation, was wrong -- or right.

Nobody seems to care about the history of science anymore. And that's a pity.

Your use of "profess" implies that you aren't following me here. Remember the OP? Although I put it to you as a challenge, it was also to him. Having a good close look at encapsulation and preformationism will show how people thought (and think) about descent (any by implication, evolution). Genetics before Mendel (or his rediscoverers)? A great subject for a paper.

The only thing I "profess" is that learning about it is a genuinely Good Thing because it's excellent training for the intellect.

In where I come from intellectually there's almost nothing that can't help students or interested people understand important things about the natural world, the social world, the spiritual world. Right or wrong matters in many situations but I don't think it's too important when having a look at what people used to think in the past. Why did certain beliefs seem to make good sense? How good were people at following out chains of implications?

I'm certainly not suggesting anybody "accept a principle" like encapsulation or preformationism but I'm sure as hell suggesting there's a great deal to be learned by having a look at them. It's trivially easy to make fun of what people thought in the past. Sometimes it's irresistable -- I admit it. But it's usually a waste of time. What matters is putting in some effort to work out why they thought what they did, in those times, those places. As I always say to my students: those old guys who got everything wrong...they-were-not-morons. They were just wrong.

Finally, if I were a modern encapsulationist (who knows...maybe there are some) I wouldn't be impressed by your statement about what would have to be disregarded. Please, take some time to understand how change is (and was) thought about and talked about. Throwing in "both presage and morph into DNA" sounds pretty good but that's all it does -- sounds pretty good.

I have attempted to educate. Nothing more. I can clearly see that its not working.

I have also never said you were wrong. I simply pointed out your argumentative fallacies. The logic upon which you base your conclusions is the only thing I have seen which is "shallow, sophomoric, and especially transparent."

I don't have all the facts. I never claimed to have all the facts.

No one does. Trying to use this to support your position is known as argument from ignorance. Please look it up.

Ignorance is defined as the lack of knowledge. I have no problem with someone being ignorant. Only when ignorance is used to support some pseudo-scientific claim that the universe was "begat" do issues arise.

Please don't take it personally, but you, my friend, are ignorant. At the least, you are ignorant of the basics rules of debate. I also suspect that you are also ignorant of the current theories relating to the beginning of the universe.

Ignorance is a situation easily overcome by education. Instead of proudly and repeatedly trumpeting your mental detriment to the world, you should attempt to better yourself with knowledge.

Good rebuttal...