B. John Jones

""Anecdote," requires brevity."

No it doesn't.

" The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population"

No, it's less than half- and even if it were that wouldn't be evidence.

10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect.

Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling)

""Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature"

No it does not.

Not strictly by definition. By common use definition, it does: virtually every standard definition of anecdote I've seen implies, or allows (with emphasis on "usually"), that the anecdote is of an amusing nature. The Bible is not intended for amusement. Readers with facetious attitudes mark it as "anecdote."

"So Scripture is not anecdote, "

Even if your premises were correct, and they are not, that isn't a logical deduction from them.

So you are still wrong.

Uhh, the Bible is not brief. If the Bible is not fictitious, which is the case, and the first premise also holds true, which it does, good logic says that the Bible is not anecdote, because anecdote, by definition is brief, and its content is, at the very least, usually, of an amusing nature.

Please learn some logic.

Everyone here is logical. Very few visitors here offer logic that's correct. The one that you're criticising is correct.

 

Firstly an apology. I see I mis-spelled your persona name in post 18. Sorry it should have been BJJ.

 

I meant none of these.

 

The independent check is embedded in scientific and technical processes but there is considerably more to it because it is not always possible.

 

The whole point is the word independent.

Do you understand the significance of this?

No. What is it?

Let's be clear about technical matters.

 

JBJ, you started this thread with two wrongs and a right.

 

A right because I and the technical world, and indeed most of the non technical, agree with you that it is dangerous to rely solely on one assessment.

 

Wrong on two counts because in your ignorance you accuse the technical world of following a single assessment creed.

 

I will allow that you do not actual understand technical matters but before I enlighten you, perhaps you would be so good as to answer this question.

 

Suppose you were in a hospital, suffering a life threatening condition, and about to receive a life saving treatment.

 

Would you think it right and proper that the dosage to be administered received an independent check before you received it?

"Independent check," as in, tested for safety, or as in a check written for payment? In either case, yes. In the second instance, no amount of years of research, or malfeasance or waste in business, justifies charging an individual or a larger economy, tens of thousands%, or even 1000%, of what it costs or should cost, today, to produce the treatment.

I see so many people claiming that a good food diet is a cure for cancer. Honestly, I can't seem to make the connection. Good food destroys rouge cells who's mitosis process is flawed... hmm. Jupiters gonna have a baby before I can make the connection.

Cancer is much longer term than one organism. The cure is much longer term. There's no treatment of one organism that will cure cancer in the same organism. It's generational, and the cure is more perfect nutrition.

 

Cancer is much longer term than one organism. The cure is much longer term. There's no treatment of one organism that will cure cancer in the same organism. It's multi-generational, and the cure is more perfect nutrition.

For example, fermented and cultured foods, fortify the natural development of genetic processes and DNA structures.

Do you know what also happened during those 50 years, that may have had some slight impact?

 

The miniaturization of storage technology.

 

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is slightly on the large side; it takes about 1.2 megabytes, or approximately 10000000 (10^7) bits of data.

 

For reference, the Apollo Guidance Program - which was used to put men on the moon - took up 64 kilobytes, or approximately 500000 (5*10^5) bits of data.

 

And that's only one of many important technologies behind the creation of the kindle. It doesn't even begin to touch on why yes, those 50 years were necessary.

Okay, to what end? Nevermind, I think I know. Yep. The almighty dollar. 99.999% of our investment in technology is to one end. Meanwhile we invest a fraction of a percent to improving the optical-health component of computing and video technologies, because, it doesn't look good on the books. Something's gotta give folks.

By both methods, it's still photons entering your eyes. The obvious thing to do is to turn down the intensity to the same level and contrast as a Kindle-type device.

Light reflected is natural. Light projected is against the nature of the human eye.

 

 

I don't know how that is relevant to the topic of the thread. But if that really is your main concern, then you should be focussing on treatments for cataracts and glaucoma (as well as parasitic diseases). Particularly in the third world.

 

Nonsense.

And "hemp" !?

How is it not relevant? This thread is about the kindle technology being the one viable area to concentrate development efforts in technologies. Visual health is the primary reason to develop the technology of the original kindle display. Right now it's basically black and white ink, electronically displayed on a tablet that is practically a sheet of paper. It can be developed to the degree of high definition video. This technology would be a remarkable contribution to the health of everyone. Light reflected is natural to the human eye, but light projected, as with the current standards for displays, is against the nature of the human eye.

Given "Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments." I doubt this bit

"Well, I for one will live 120 years."

 

 

Re. "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature."

That's what happened.

And, in the end, Genesis was found to be unreliable so it was thrown out.

"I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. "

Yes you do.

You keep picking Genesis; and you keep trying to pick it, even though it is known to be wrong.

 

Why waste time going over it all again?

You defy the living God. I've recommended Genesis chapter 1 as one basis to discuss creation. On the same basis I now charge that--I, one member of the Christian church, will refute every charge of unreliability of Judeo-Christian Scripture, or of that Scripture being wrong, by the terms I originally recommended be extended to all people genuinely interested in science--if you even have the guts, and the community here even has any courage at all to continue this dialogue and not censor it because I maintain this view.

Sounds like being religious to me.

That's because you haven't allowed yourself to know God. You think of him as a religious "concept."

"Religion," is about doing things to appeal to, or to serve an abstract god, or "God." Being Christian is knowing the living Son of God Jesus Christ, and knowing God as Father, and knowing God the Holy Spirit, and living in fellowship with God and his children.

 

I don't understand your reasoning at all.

 

Single method?

 

Hardly.

 

Take for example, the ways in which we determine the age of fossils or stones or pottery shards or cliff dwellings or bones.

 

Last I checked, there were over four-dozen different methodologies of radiometric dating.

Each of these methods stems from one scientific method, which is highly useful, except that it excludes as evidence, in a calculated and blanket way, every item that is deemed "not scientific," by science. I would accept excluding certain data by agreement of the several concurrent observers in tests on case-by-case bases, but modern science instead, intentionally excludes, blankly--without consideration, the Scripture. I'm not demanding acceptance of Scripture as fact. I'm appealing for admission of Scripture as evidence, at least on a case-by-case basis. But your only answer is that it's not scientific, which is the point of this thread. Science is its own god. You have one basis--science. This is reckless, because science measures one thing, matter (and its motions). It cannot measure what takes place with the human component that is aware, having sensation. It can measure how human flesh and bone decay, how impulses and electrical signals react and interact in living beings, but it cannot measure what takes place with human conscience, human sensation, human emotion, human choice, human thought, human awareness--the soul--after physical death. And everyone here knows very well, none will ever resolve death by science. And in any case, physical death is merely the first death. The church that exalts Jesus of Nazareth, will never taste the second death.

If you Google "methods of radiometric dating" you will see this. Prepare to be amazed.

I already trust that these are useful. I'm already amazed by the rich detail of science, and have been since 1998, at least.

We also cannot forget the very powerful method of peer-review which we use all the time in science. This gives colleagues the chance of debunking or refuting ANY claim made by another scientist.

Key phrase: by another scientist. Scientists determine who qualifies as scientist. Ken Ham calls himself, as others call him, a "creationist." I call him a struggling scientist who believes the Bible. I'm an enthusiast in science because I've discovered some things about practical technologies that are extremely fascinating by reading and studying scientific works, such as some books on the features of the electric guitar (pickups and electromagnetic transmission of sound), Audel Practical Electricity, college texts (Biology and Physics [as an accounting major]), computer science texts (minor), almost 2 decades of deliberate browsing the internet in these areas, as well as nutrition, the heavens, and even the first parts of Darwin's Origin of Species (these first parts not objected to). But again, all these studies pale in light of life, in light of what took place leading up to, during and following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

And make no mistake: many religious folks, for example, I have heard accuse us in the sciences of being akin to some evil, good-old-boy network who always sticks up for our views and findings that continue to all but disprove the likelihood of a personal god.

 

What they don't get is that it is the DREAM of ANY scientist to be able to make his mark by being able to empirically refute a well-known Theory. Or any sort of finding that is offered in a PR journal or paper. This is so much better in career terms than just following the flock or the conventional wisdom of the day, is it not?

This to me is senseless. What's the point in "making a mark," if you're just going to die? What's the point in refuting just any kind of "finding" offered in a PR journal or paper? Career? That's it? Not very pleasant. Not comparable to the rich life I'm living. Heck, by science, and I'm not a scientist, I've discovered how to baffle people who can't guess that I'm beyond 27 years of age, and I'm now teetering to 41. Macro and micro-nutrition, molecular modeling, biological processes and systems are worth far more to me than a paycheck or renown. I have proven to the people who know me, that Christ is truth when he says that in order to enter his kingdom, "you must become as a little child." I make sure I get younger and younger, because getting older, is inevitable.

I cannot think of any other arena that holds its findings and theories up to as much open-faced and vulnerable attacks or refutations than the arena of Science.

That's strange. And you haven't given the Scripture, nor the living Christ the same extent of consideration as you have the biological systems of rats and viruses to find cures for disease.

And religion is notorious for NOT holding their own proclamations up to the same amount of inspection and levels that they demand of science. It should be a two way street, but it is far from that.

It was Ken Ham who challenged Bill Nye, not vice-versa. Of course, Ham is Christian, not religious.

No secondary source is considered evidence in of itself - especially if it contradicts empirical data, Bible, Koran, Torah etc included.

All the human figures in the Koran, the Torah, etc. are dead to this very day; but not the prominent human figure of Scripture. [ . . . also @ EdEarl]

If Rome could have put down the testimony of this little church of about 3,000 Christian men, they certainly would have. They did everything any human power could, to put it down--to the point of massacre. Rome knew very well how to crucify, correctly. The fact is, truth prevails. Christ was physically raised from the dead, and ascended, physically, to the right hand of God, visibly to his followers. The Bible, along with the testimony of countless churches, who have carried along from generation to generation, this same testimony, is not a secondary source. You're in a very risky mode of business.

 

Arete selected: "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence" [.] and thoughtfully punctuated.

 

I had said, "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact."

 

Arete: "Ergo, you want science to make a special exemption to its standard of rigor and accept a literal interpretation of the old testament."

 

[But I had just said, consider, not initially as fact."]

 

I would hardly classify the pope as Christian (of course, that's mere opinion).

 

There's very much, and richer data, that supersedes empirical data, as valid as those data often are. Science is one very useful way of observing, and calculating so many outstanding things in nature. But nature herself always supersedes science.

 

Well, it might be a better approximation than assuming that everyone lives 3 score years and ten.

So, what would you use?

It's not enough to say that - "because science does [whatever] it is dangerous" for two reasons.

Firstly, you need to show that it is true, both that science does what you say it does (and so far you have shown that you simply don't know how science works) and you also need to show that doing so is dangerous (and again- you have not even got close).

 

But, even after you have done all that- you still need to show that there is an alternative which works.

What alternative are you suggesting?

Well, I for one will live 120 years.

I didn't name "whatever," nor the 2 things mentioned as the fundamental thing that is very dangerous about modern science.

Science-in-fact, involves several observers agreeing on (a) method(s) of observation (that might later be modified or extended, if all agree), intending to arrive at a useful and reliable answer to a relevant question about a material problem or goal, based on the agreed method(s). Unfortunately, modern science unconditionally (for the most part) precludes certain viable variables and sets of data into every testing environment and station of observation.

So you want to pick where science has it right and doesn’t. Does modern medicine have it wrong and need additional help. Do you avoid doctors because they have medicine wrong? Or, does the modern electronic industry have it wrong and need help. Modern electronics is based on quantum mechanics; how would you improve electronics, what is needed in addition to the scientific method.

I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. I want science practiced correctly, without undue bias. Modern science is very useful, and very prone to error, as are media, the Christian church, economies of scale, etc. The society in general needs help. I and my neighbors, next door, and overseas need help. Quantum mechanics engineers and technicians will always maintain margins of error. I would improve electronics by concentrating on perfecting acoustics, with music as a nearly perfect reference, a sound basis being Bose technologies. The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature.

Does modern medicine have it wrong and need additional help.

Modern medicine should be based on good nutrition. The lion's share of research should be concentrated in discovery of nutritional values of foods, variations of diet, and inclinations of mind-teaching-appetite and appetite-teaching-mind.

 

Well, I for one will live 120 years.

 

I didn't name "whatever," nor the 2 things mentioned as the fundamental thing that is very dangerous about modern science.

 

Science-in-fact, involves several observers agreeing on (a) method(s) of observation (that might later be modified or extended, if all agree), intending to arrive at a useful and reliable answer to a relevant question about a material problem or goal, based on the agreed method(s). Unfortunately, modern science unconditionally (for the most part) precludes certain viable variables and sets of data into every testing environment and station of observation.

 

 

I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. I want science practiced correctly, without undue bias. Modern science is very useful, and very prone to error, as are media, the Christian church, economies of scale, etc. The society in general needs help. I and my neighbors, next door, and overseas need help. Quantum mechanics engineers and technicians will always maintain margins of error. I would improve electronics by concentrating on perfecting acoustics, with music as a nearly perfect reference, a sound basis being Bose technologies. The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature.

 

Modern medicine should be based on good nutrition. The lion's share of research should be concentrated in discovery of nutritional values of foods, variations of diet, and inclinations of mind-teaching-appetite and appetite-teaching-mind (where appetite includes palette).

Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments.

Writing an anecdote down does not stop it being an anecdote so 1 isn't an assumption- it's an observation.

Adding anecdotes- as it they were real data- is reckless since we know that it is unreliable (and sometimes outrightly dishonest.

So, again, that's not an assumption, it's an observation.

 

So you are actually wrong on both points.

"Anecdote," requires brevity. The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population across millennia, as a comprehensive collective history of events in time, and transcending time.

"Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature (if facetiously).

So Scripture is not anecdote, except by preclusion, such as in modern science; my point in exposing presumption number 1.

Preclusion of Scripture as evidence requires presumption. Modern science is not strictly based on objective observation since it precludes data from its view, without consideration, commonly recognized as truth, by very reasonable people--Billy Graham, "Honest Abe," Martin Luther King, Isaac Newton, John F. Kennedy, etc.

@B John Jones

Scientific theory says that a body going at speed S for H hours goes H*S distance. Scientists can measure the distance with trigonometry, with an odometer, and with a tape measure (ruler). That's three different verifications of the theory. What would you propose?

 

For example, R=50m/h for 2 hours = 100 miles.

Very good measures. But I wouldn't use them to calculate my length of days.

This seems to be a simple case of wanting something to be a certain way, and making up the facts to support it. If the OP thinks this is intellectually honest, it's probably why he misunderstands how science really operates. Better the caricature to make fun of than to actually try to understand reality.

"There is a way that seems right to a [person], but in the end it leads to death." --an ancient proverb

I hardly make fun of science. Rather I refute where there is error, being more prominent where science is "modern."

Also considering that the scientific method is not a single basket, but utilizes orthogonal approaches.

It is like saying that knowledge is a bad thing as it relies on methods that generate knowledge.

Orthogonal "approaches", by definition, preclude information, as far as it would otherwise be counted as evidence, if it comes from outside the scientific method--one basket. Orthogonal "approach" tolerates such information, but will not consider it as evidence.

Knowledge, utterly based (relying exclusively) on one class, or form, of methods (even very good methods), is very dangerous.

If you think that using objective measurements to test ideas is dangerous then I don't think there is much hope for you.

Not at all. Using it as your only basis--is very dangerous.

I find that comment a bit aggressive, given that B. John Jones hasn't actually said much. But the OP indeed begs the question what other methods there could be. Just because anecdotal evidence is an alternative method, adding it as a second source of verification of ideas does not really offer much hope of improving the output. Or to stay in the picture: Putting all eggs in one basket seems like a better idea than putting half of them in the basket and throwing the other half of them down a cliff.

You're assuming 2 things (probably presumptuously): 1) textual information offered as evidence is anecdotal; 2) admitting them as evidence equals reckless abandon.

 

I don't think that most people care about whether, from a scientific standpoint, there are other universes: Not many people are holding their breath until the next article about the possibility of the existence of a multiverse comes out in Scientific American.

 

However, from a religious standpoint, if we accept the original poster's assumption that the universe was created, I would suggest that there may be an element of sibling rivalry (syndrome) involved, in the sense that people may have, as per Freud, an innate tendency to want to be their creator's (God's) sole object of affection and center of attention as well the sole object of affection (as a group) and center of attention of their own creator parents (as individuals), and later the sole object of affection and center of attention of their romantic partner. Hence the widespread tendency for religion's to claim that they alone have the attributes that enable them to be saved; hence the tendency for religions to fight with each other; hence the tendency of religious groups to claim that they alone are God's chosen people (aka favorite people); and hence, I would also suggest, the tendency for people to resist the concept that God might have created other universes.

 

Even infants compete for parental attention, and just about everyone, I suspect, has narcissistic tendencies that lead them to want to be the center of attention, and to be the only person who is loved (even if it is just by their romantic partner).

 

Much like our parents, God typically provides people with similar things such as forgiveness, discipline, unconditional love. Often it seems that, much as many people's parents, God sometimes seems to abandon us, to the point where we are told that we just have to have faith that we haven't been abandoned or that we are still loved. In any case, people don't, on some level of awareness, I suspect, like the idea that ours is not the only universe, much like people centuries ago did not like the idea that they were not the center of the universe.

 

Deism proposes that God created the universe, wound it up like a clock so that it would run on its own, and then just walked off. The universe seems forlorn and abandoned enough as it is, without people proposing that God could be busy elsewhere creating (or perhaps tending) other universes.

 

Actually, according to the Christian faith, no human being has ever had any attribute ever enabling them, or is enabled to be saved. Christ himself, by taking their punishment, through one perfect act of obedience to his Eternal Father, emptying himself of deity, laying down his life as a friend, for his enemies, by his own goodness saves men, through their faith, and utter trust in him.

The God kind of faith, by the Christian definition, is not an attribute. It's physical matter. Christ said, that faith, if it is of a certain physical size (that of a mustard seed), can move this particular mountain (visible from the Temple in Jerusalem).

Which is why Christian faith is neither a religion, nor among them.

And no mature Christian would hope to be the only one whom God loves. Every mature Christian would be willing to die for any other man, woman or child, if their death would bring eternal good to the other.

And to the contrary, God is not busy creating universes, but building a city with his own hands, a city for his church: 1,400 miles cube (12 stories), according to the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

Quoted By Memammal: Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief)

@ Memammal: Not always. Belief is not always a state of mind, nor is it always about something. Sometimes belief is a matter of trusting someone--a physical bond.

Quoted By Memammal: Truth simply represents the opposite of deception. Although it is often used as a more emphatic way of expressing what we consider to be a "fact", it is irrelevant in that context beyond establishing that the information being presented or interpreted is not the product of deceit. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth)

@ Memammal: Actually, truth came first. Deception is a distortion of the truth. "Fact" simply means that 2 or more agree that something is truth. Of course, they are often in error, misinterpreting error as "fact," having been deceived, or even sometimes willfully deceiving.

Quoted By Memammal: Knowledge is going to be more narrowly defined as that information for which we have either direct experience and/or data to confirm that it represents a, more or less, accurate interpretation of the world around us. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth)

@ Memammal: Instead, knowledge is knowing something, or someone, truthfully.

Science uses one basis of judgment--information deemed as evidence by a single method, science (self). This proposition is quite dangerous. Science essentially puts all of your eggs in one basket.

What the real advantages you would have from this display type?

 

Unable to use in darkness,night.. Disadvantage.

 

Little power consumption less.

My 24" LED monitor, takes 19.3 W (just measured with watt meter), while the rest of desktop machine up to 500 W (probably average around 200-300 W).

That's 5-10% energy less used.

 

19.3 W * 3600s * 14h/d * 30 d/m / 3.6e6 = 8.106 kWh per month * 0.62 / 3.78 = $1.33 on electricity bill less per month. That's 5% of my total.

 

Optimization always should be started from things that are consuming the most of energy/money/time etc.

If you optimize computer program, you run profiler, informing which function is running the slowest and CPU spend the most of its time.

You don't start optimize from things that would give barely difference.

Loss of visual health ought to take precedence. Besides, loss of visual wellness will cost money, time and energy, not to mention many of the pleasant things in life. I would read by lamp at night instead of stare at light projection.

 

It's very good indeed then that science isn't such a single line. And that it has a far better track record than intuition and improvisation. Scientific method, or "winging it"? I'll go with the rational methodology.

Modern science admits one class of evidence--evidence deemed acceptable by science.

Government courts, having long outlived modern science, admits scientific evidence, and many alternative classes of evidence. Smience unfortunately admits only her own interpretations and judgments. One line.

It doesn't 'govern' anything - it is a chunk of rock.

Prove it.

Does an ionic bond govern, as would the moon?

Improvisation and intuition is based on factual information coupled with best judgment--there's exactly one perfect judgment in life. Quite often, we judge with moments to spare. If you have 10 years to decide, or 10 seconds, or a tenth of a second, you'll use intuition. Merely choosing a premise or hypothesis entails intuition.

 

Actually, a dose of praziquantel to treat schistomiasis costs about 20c US. Your presumptive comment insinuating I care only about technology that impacts me neglects the number of years I have and continue to spend researching methods to combat neglected tropical diseases.

 

But you, know, give a man a kindle and you'll feed him for... well... and cure him of?

How about a ratio of 20 cent jobs to "higher-ends?" They say Bill Gates and Don Trump have given so much. These are men of renowned achievement, and contribution, but mostly to causes they can be recognized for (sorry for the breach of grammar). Of course, I haven't looked at their check registers or lifestyles. Still, I think it's safe to assume.

 

But you, know, give a man a kindle and you'll feed him for... well... and cure him of?

And yes, education is vital. But monies for education would be released from every insitution, with a blanket improvement of human vision due to one invention. Instead, let's just mass produce what we have because, hey, it's convention.

I'm not saying cease studies for cancer, etc. But distribution of efforts ought to be concentrated where it counts.

I'm not saying cease studies for cancer, etc. But distribution of efforts ought to be concentrated where it counts.

For example, nutrition is a legitimate cure for cancer, not radiology or hemp.

B John Jones,

 

You are talking figurative stuff. Not literal stuff. You are speaking of such figurative stuff as if it is literal. You do not know the difference between the waking world and the dream world.

 

Regards, TAR

I awake to a real world, with real problems, and real answers--physical questions with physical answers from a physical God.

 

 

I would respect someone who challenged established science with evidence.

 

But just ignoring the evidence is not worthy of respect. Wilful ignorance is not something to be proud of.

I assume rather, you would respect someone who challenged scientific claims only if their evidence were established through science.

That's like a chef respecting cooks who break from cookbooks only if other chefs respect the break from the same cookbooks.

Soul-food don't work that way.

 

I think this is perhaps a problem in academia these days. There are many, like you, who seem to view the challenge as more important than actually having evidence to support it. Convention is convention for a reason, because it's usually the current best explanation. I find most objections to mainstream knowledge aren't rationally based, or are formed from misunderstanding the science involved.

Rations entail cost-benefit analysis. It costs far more, and yields far less, to strictly adhere to a single line of logic, than to adhere to more artistic science, which depends more on improvisation (jazz), especially intuition.

We also understand the genetic mechanisms now, which nether Wallace or Darwin nor any of their predecessors did.

DNA-systems are like the skeletal-muscular (sic) systems, or muscular-intraskeletal systems; brain-neuro-intramuscular systems, CPU-computing systems; except that DNA is the most advanced stage of molecular-biological understanding science has arrived at (pardon the grammar). In fact, atoms are far more composite than science understands.

 

 

As you have been shown the evidence that this is not the case, this is obviously a deliberate lie.

Oh, so you've removed the influence of human beings in a testing environment, or in an observed ecosystem?

 

You have already been shown that speciation has been directly observed. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away, nor does shifting the goalposts or obfuscating.

 

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Observed_speciation

It's very good that you're a scientist and not a teacher. How would you respond to students who respect convention, but are more inclined to challenge it? If I were subordinate to you, I would probably not enjoy science class. Yet I would still challenge your views, respectfully.

 

 

Key point: the fact of evolution has been known about for millennia -- ever since people domesticated plants and animals.

 

There have been theories about how it works for just as long. Most of these don't really work (e.g. Lamark). But Wallace and Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection, based on existing ideas and their own observations. Experiments and observations have largely confirmed the basic idea, but various extensions and changes have been made ('cos that's how science works).

 

We also understand the genetic mechanisms now, which nether Wallace or Darwin nor any of their predecessors did.

Evolution, by definition, occurs by inertia, not momentum. Domestication of creatures involves forces outside of inertia--human manipulation, invention, technology. Darwin presented this known fact in the first part of Origin of Species, which was useful reading. "Speciation," however, is an exaggeration and presumption.

Domestication is technological. Technologies evolve as a matter of inertia only because humans are naturally inclined to invent things in nature. But nature itself never evolves as a matter of inertia when humans are removed. Even human nature is the same. Inventiveness is a natural tendency of human beings. Fashions and features change. Nature is fixed.

There are at least 10 companies (and a number of research projects) developing these technologies at the moment. It has made great advances since the original Kindle.

 

Personally, I find these displays almost unusable so, despite their advantages, I think there is still a long way to go.

 

Whether this is the most beneficial technology seems doubtful.

I'm talking about developing them to the stage of high-definition video. It shouldn't have taken 50 years to get from lcd timekeeping to kindle. People were more concerned about cheap video. Amusement usually trumps rich entertainment in the human view.