Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...

[ColdWater]

The basis for all their fears is that they do not see God’s power as limitless. They limit his powers based on their limited ability to understand.

[ColdWater]

Since, in one passage, the English translation was inadequate, he’d prefer to throw the whole bible out, or at least require that it not be published in English (like the Chicoms do),

Of course you are misrepresenting my preference. I think that comes under the heading of bearing false witness, one of the sins for which you will be held accountable for.

[Fichori]

“Fichori why don’t you point out specifically what I said that you disagree with? This arguing through a proxy is pointless.”

You mean, what specifically I am referring to whey I say 'your wacky science'?

Your idea that the sun's apparent and actual positions are off by 2.1 degrees.

I can try to find the first/last places you asserted that, or you could just make the claim again if you like.

And, its not that I disagree, it just that you were standing behind a totally unscientific and completely absurd claim.

Oh, yeah, and calling it science.

[allmendream]

Yes, a God who set everything up to happen by natural forces somehow seems too distant and divine. They seem to prefer the man behind the curtain pulling levers and pushing buttons, he is a lovable cuss who is easy to understand, and the mechanics are not quite so frighteningly complex.

[Fichori]

“Since you cannot specify how I altered scripture, one must conclude that I did not alter scripture. Thanks.”

I never said you were altering scripture!

[MrB]

Not false witness, just inference based on your posts.

You never did answer what your solution to the “translation problem” would be because you didn’t want to give away your position (like leftists do, they hide their intent),

and, from your apparent hostility towards the authority of scripture, I’d have to infer that you would prefer that it not be looked at authoritatively at all.

So, answer the [] question, or my inference stands.

[LeGrande]

Your idea that the sun's apparent and actual positions are off by 2.1 degrees.

When you see the light from the Sun, is the Sun exactly where you see the light coming from it or is the Suns position off by the amount of time it took for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun (8.3 minutes) and the angular rotation of the earth, 2.1 degrees (your frame of reference) that occurs in 8.3 minutes?

[js1138]

For anyone interested in how a debate can be conducted, here’s on in progress:

http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/does-intelligent-design-have-merit/comments

[Fichori]

“When you see the light from the Sun, is the Sun exactly where you see the light coming from it or is the Suns position off by the amount of time it took for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun (8.3 minutes) and the angular rotation of the earth, 2.1 degrees (your frame of reference) that occurs in 8.3 minutes?”

Now, can you back that claim up?

Wikipedia should have something on it, right?

Diurnal aberration perhaps?

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: When you see the light from the Sun, is the Sun exactly where you see the light coming from it or is the Suns position off by the amount of time it took for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun (8.3 minutes) and the angular rotation of the earth, 2.1 degrees (your frame of reference) that occurs in 8.3 minutes?

But wouldn't that also mean that when Pluto was at the part of its orbit which brought it the most distance from the earth, at which point the time of light travel is 6.8 hours in which time the earth rotates 102 degrees -- does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won't even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?

And what about a heavenly body that was 12 light hours away - would it appear to be exactly in the opposite side of the sky of where it really was? Would it's gravity be 180 degrees out of phase with its apparent position?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[GourmetDan]

"From politicians to posters here on FR, there are specimens that make you we did get humans from chimps."

I used to be in a newsgroup with this one guy who called the evos 'the Bandar Log'. :-)

[GourmetDan]

"You are rather silly. Of course I know the difference between a protein and DNA. Central dogma of Molecular Biology is DNA -> RNA -> Protein. And what do you think determines the proteome if not the genome? You cannot make a protein without a gene to code for it."

You are rather silly. You missed a step between DNA and RNA. Do you know what it is? And how can a proteome be 3x the size of the genome if genes code 1 for 1? They don't. What's the missing step that allows genes to code for more than 1 protein?

"Every GENE in a chimp could be mutated so that it forms a fully functioning protein that is identical to a human protein."

Reference please.

"You have not yet said how you think DNA mutation is “constrained” nor do I hold out much hope of hearing a mechanism."

Of course I did. You either didn't read the article or didn't understand it. Here's what is concludes: "Epigenetic mechanisms constrain expression by adapting regions of the genome to maintain either gene silencing or gene activity." No expression, no 'selection', no 'evolution'.

"SEEING AS IN HUNDREDS OF POSTS YOU STILL FAIL TO POINT OUT WHAT MECHANISM YOU THINK PULLS THE SUN AROUND A MOTIONLESS EARTH!"

You either don't understand or you frame the question in a fallacious manner such that there can be no correct answer. That is the argument from fallacy, also known as argumentum ad logicam or fallacy fallacy. It is a logical fallacy which assumes that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.

"I'll quit wasting my time with you, even though you finally did see the truth of the matter that a bacteria increases its mutation rate in response to stress in order to better survive that stress. Baby steps. Baby steps."

No 'finally' to it. I have known for years that bacteria increase their mutation rate when survival is threatened. As I already explained to you, your 'outcome' presuming that this ability arose through 'evolution' is purely philosophical and no more empirical than the opposite 'outcome' of presuming that this ability was created.

You've got to crawl before you can even take that first baby step and I don't see you even crawling yet.

[ColdWater]

Now, can you back that claim up?

Simple math and geometry. Try it sometime.

[ColdWater]

Not false witness, just inference based on your posts.

If it is your inference, please make that clear. Do NOT post inferences as fact. You KNOW that that is bearing false witness.

You never did answer what your solution to the “translation problem” would be because you didn’t want to give away your position (like leftists do, they hide their intent),

I didn't know you asked for my "solution".

[ColdWater]

already explained to you, your 'outcome' presuming that this ability arose through 'evolution' is purely philosophical and no more empirical than the opposite 'outcome' of presuming that this ability was created.

Perhaps it was "created" through "evolution". Now, can we all be happy?

[MrB]

oh, at least twice, now three times.

However, I take your position to be that of one of those petty little snipers that sits smugly shooting at the ideas of others without ever putting forth an idea of his own.

Go ahead, though, prove me wrong on that. You haven’t, even though you have had ample opportunity.

[metmom]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal%5B1%5D

Main Entry: lit·er·al (adjective)

1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures

b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual {liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo}

c: free from exaggeration or embellishment {the literal truth}

d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts {a very literal man} 2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters 3: reproduced word for word : exact , verbatim {a literal translation}

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true

Main Entry: 2true Function:adverb
2 a (1): being in accordance with the actual state of affairs

Main Entry: 2true Function:adverb
1: in accordance with fact or reality

Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. It is free from exaggeration or embellishment {the literal truth}; it is reproduced word for word as God gave it.

I believe that the Word of God is true as well.

Accepting that the Bible is the “literal Truth” is not the same as interpreting everything in it literally and demanding that it be followed as such.

Only someone not interested in honest debate would demand that people violate common sense rules of literary reading. Poetry is poetry, song is song, allegory, metaphor, analogy, are all literary devices that are legitimately used in Scripture.

Anyone who is incapable of recognizing those differences shows an appalling lack of understanding of English. Anyone unwilling to recognize those differences is not debating honestly.

It’s alarming that science is in the hands of people so uneducated that they are unable to recognize the distinct differences in literary forms; or so biased that they are unwilling to recognize those differences. I certainly would not trust someone with that much of a lack of basic education to write any kind of reliable paper.

For someone who prides themselves on objectivity, for those who call themselves scientists who stoop to such unethical tactics, calls into question their judgment on virtually any other matter. They have clearly shown that they are not able to keep their personal biases out of any reasoning process. If they can’t do that in one area, then I see no reason to expect them to do it in others and it makes everything they say suspect.

So, since evos demand that Scripture be taken “literally” and interpreted as such, what do they have to say about the latest scientific pronouncements? Are we to take them literally?

So is it punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?

Are origins part of evolution or not?

Is it the pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?

Did life arise from non-living matter or is spontaneous generation is impossible?

So, are you a scientist, LeGrande? What field is your degree in? What scientific endeavors have you participated in?

[MrB]

Only someone not interested in honest debate would demand that people violate common sense rules of literary reading. Nutshell. Nailed it right here.

[allmendream]

You do not understand the clear meaning of words.

“Epigenetic mechanisms constrain expression by adapting regions of the genome to maintain either gene silencing or gene activity.”

Nothing about mutation, or mutation being “constrained”. EXPRESSION is being constrained. You do know what expression is don't you? It is the DNA gene being transcribed into RNA and then being translated into a protein. THAT is gene expression, and it is controlled by epigenetic mechanisms.

NOTHING about epigenetic mechanisms of DNA methylation and histone modification constrain mutation. Once again you simply have no idea what your talking about.

[allmendream]

And do you think “Random” is synonymous with “Out of the control of God”?

And how are you going to demonstrate that mutation is non random when every experiment with error prone DNA polymerase or mutatagens show that mutations create unique genetic variation rather than making the same mutations every time?