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?...

[mrjesse]

I'm replying to this again because I had misunderstood you the first time and I thought of more to say.

Okay, so in a hundred years when your friends are dead, will my example be less absurd? Look up Anatoly Fomenko, a Russian scientist who believes that all of ancient history actually happened in the Middle Ages--does that make you question the existence of ancient Rome? You're just avoiding the point of the question by focusing on irrelevant details.

Now wait a second -- you're moving from science to history! Why not just stick to science when we're discussing science? Next we'll be discussing art or something.

And by the way, regarding your earlier statement about me having a broken leg and would I listen to the doctor who was telling me about it -- that (like I said before is a dishonest argument) because the doctor actually saw the xray or maybe is even looking at my leg and it's bent where it aint supposed to bend. We're talking about a current state -- not an event a million years ago when nobody was there to see it!

You posit a conspiracy of thousands of people who are acting in concert ...

That's not exactly what I'm trying to say. There are thousands of people out planning bank robberies right now, too. But they are not conspiring - but they are all doing the same thing for the same reason. Scientists who filter the facts to cause ASBE to appear more likely do it each for the same reason - because it helps them convince themselves that they are right and everytthing did happen by itself. It's hard to believe that anyone would know less about human psychology then me, but here's a clue for you: most people are far more willing to believe something that they want to be true then something that they don't want to be true. So just like there are a thousand bank robbers planning their next holdup -- not because they all conspired -- but because they are all people with the same goal, so it is entirely plausible that there are thousands of scientists who want all to have come from absolutely nothing on its own using only natural process, and as a result they filter the evidence to better fit what they want to be true. But I think there is some level of conspiring because from what I can tell, professors do get fired for raising questions about ASBE or AFN (All Species By Evolution / All From Nothing) and grant money is much more plentiful for research that is working to prove ASBE/AFN.

... to deceive the public for a reason you've made up and imputed to them. It's obviously very important to you not to believe in evolution.

BINGO! Believe! You are correct in that it is important to me to not have to believe in something that is supposed to be science! If it's science, I want to be able to know it. No belief needed! If the best I can do is believe, then it's not science! Seriously, if someone said to you "There are thousands of well educated PhD Bible Scholars who have studied the Bible for years who are definitely "experts" and all say that it's true -- all you have to do is believe it " -- would you say that was scientific? Nope. And how is having to believe in ASBE/AFN any different?

Personally, I think your alternative is ridiculously unlikely, ...

And why? Just look at the news. People lie all the time. Soliton telling me that "Just as material lies harm our society, little lies make it work." Does that include the little lies within the evolutionary professor society -- to make it work? There are lots of people in the world lying. There are lots of people trying to cheat other people. There are even gangs and mafia. If you look around, you will see that it is quite plausible to suggest that a lot of people could all be involved simultaneously in the same thing for the same reason - either individually or as an organized group. And higher intelligence does not reduce one's likelihood of being involved in something dishonest. Nor does wealth.

What makes "scientists" so special? Do they have to swear an oath to be more honest then the average person? I mean, really - why are they less likely to be involved in a widespread dishonest effort -- especially one that's not even illegal, but rather condoned and funded by the US government? If anything, being bright and rich and considered an "expert" all would tend to goad a person into thinking they could get away with more.

Just why do you think this idea -- of widespread less-then-full-honesty-among-scientists is so unlikely? Do you think it's unlikely for any groups of people to all do something -- or just scientists?

Do a quick google search for how many people lie. It's staggering. I saw numbers between 60 and 90%. Do you really believe that all the scientists are in the 40-10% that don't lie regularly?

By the way -- what is your take on lying -- never okay just like killing someone, or sometimes okay, or always okay? My take on it is that lying is never okay just like killing someone is never okay.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: "opinions of experts." Hmm. That sounds like an appeal to authority.

So? Just because there's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority" doesn't mean that every argument that refers to the opinion of an authority in the field is therefore fallacious. Again, you're dodging the question.

Well let's discuss the experts. Who is this cloud of thousands of experts? Are you an expert? Do you know an expert? What makes you or them an expert?

You misunderstand me. By "your alternative," I didn't mean your alternative to the theory of evolution. I don't know what you think happened. I was referring to your conspiracy theory as "your alternative" to the idea that most scientists are reporting and interpreting their findings in good faith.

Ahh, you're right -- I had misunderstood you. Sorry about that! Thanks for the clarification!

By the way, you don't know what my theological beliefs are either.

I notice you didn't say that my assumption was wrong (whatever it was..) :-) Remember, it's a free country - if you're trying to say my assumptions about your theological beliefs are wrong then for pitty's sake say so! But like my grandpa could have but probably didn't say -- if a man can't make his own point he probably doesn't have one.

Don't make assumptions about "atheistic evolutionists."

Heh? he he he uhhuh. And why in tarzanland not? Are you trying to say something? :-) Like my grandpa could have but probably didn't say....[ultra wide grin].

I don't know what WP is. There's no problem with the peppered moth studies.

Ahh, sorry I figured you know that WP would stand for Wikipedia.org -- I had already provided a link to them to you twice, but never mind I shall again :-)

The problem I'm talking about isn't with the peppered moth studies but the over-zealous conclusions that some evolutionists draw - case in point, Wikipedia says:

While it is true that this example shows natural selection causing microevolution within a species, it demonstrates rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change,[11] and despite the claims of creationists, there are no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species.

First of all, since both varieties existed beforehand, I'm not even sure that "evolution" is the correct term. (Unless you want to define it as "the change in frequency of alleles in the gene pools of two different varieties/subspecies/whatever.") But the change in ratios dark to light of the peppered moth and then back is no more evolution then the change in ratio of fish and lilly pads in a pond. The fact is, it could have been white moths and black butterflies, completely non interbreedable, and one species went near extinction while the other flourished, then went back to previous population ratios when the trees lightened up. (But certainly being able to interbreed is the only thing that kept the white varieties from going totally extinct).

But then look - they go on to say that there's no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species - such what changes? Both the light and dark varieties existed before and they both existed afterwards!

The only thing that changed was the ratio of the two pre-existing varieties! You can't get a new species by changing the ratio back and forth between two existing varieties! -- and how they look at the peppered moth and conclude that nothing bars a new species from developing is beyond me.

so don't you think they are stretching things a little, there? or am I totally missing something pertinent?

There is no doubt in my mind that there is an agenda to push a worldview.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

So what's the verdict? Am I crazy or is LeGrande? :-)

Mrjesse has already admitted that the apparent position and the actual position are different, which was the whole disagreement to begin with.

[LeGrande]

You still don't understand what stellar aberration is : (

Okay I gave it my best shot -- now be a man and give it your best shot! What do you say the difference is between "Stellar Aberration" and "Annual Aberration?"

There is no difference. That was my point.

Are you saying that WP and all the other websites that I've cited about stellar aberration and such are all wrong?

No, but your interpretation of what they are saying is wrong. Annual aberration is composed of many parts, not just one.

So which is it? Are you saying you were wrong or that WP is wrong? I mean WP could be wrong -- so why not just say so?

Why don't you just look at the pictures? The pictures and diagrams will tell you everything you need to know.

So tell me, what part of the physics book do you disagree with?

[Fichori]

“Mrjesse has already admitted that the apparent position and the actual position are different, which was the whole disagreement to begin with.”

Ah, LeGrande, your stretching the truth again.

The whole discussion has been about your claim of a 2.1° difference between apparent versus actual position of the Sun due to the rotation of the Earth.

You have failed to demonstrate the scientific validity of your 2.1° that you claim is caused by the rotation of the Earth.

[TrevorSnowsrap]

I’ve been involved in some of these discussions that seem to go nowhere. Without picking a side I would suggest quoting an internet reference to settle some of these issues.

Typically only kooks or the misinformed can’t be swayed by well known an dsimple scientific facts or information.

[TrevorSnowsrap]

It sounds like you are both wrong. :)

A real explanation I found sounds a bit more complicated than what’s being discused here.

I suppose the first step would be to use spherical coordinates.

Try this link:

http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/93_back/sun_position

[TrevorSnowsrap]

From Wiki:

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

[...]

“A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant deflection of the Sun from its true position by k towards the west (as viewed from Earth), opposite to the apparent motion of the Sun along the ecliptic. This constant deflection is often erroneously explained as due to the motion of the Earth during the 8.3 minutes that it takes light to travel from the Sun to Earth: this is a valid explanation provided it is given in the Earth’s reference frame, whereas in the Sun’s reference frame the same phenomenon must be described as aberration of light. Hence it is not a coincidence that the angle of annual aberration be equal to the path swept by the Sun along the ecliptic in the time it takes for light to travel from it to the Earth (8.316746 minutes divided by one sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265”, very close to k). Similarly, one could explain the Sun’s apparent motion over the background of fixed stars as a (very large) parallax effect.”

[Fichori]

“It sounds like you are both wrong. :)” [excerpt]

mrjesse and I both maintain that there is a ~21 arcsecond difference between the apparent and actual position of the sun due to the aberration of light.

Is that what you are saying we are wrong about?

[Fichori]

“From Wiki:” [excerpt]

Already posted in 1922. (Fully colorized too)

[TrevorSnowsrap]

“Is that what you are saying we are wrong about?”

ROFL.

Why don’t you start with stating what you claim to be correct about.

Try supporting this claim with a linked reference and get back to me.

[TrevorSnowsrap]

And there are no disagreements over this information?

[Fichori]

“Why don’t you start with stating what you claim to be correct about.” [excerpt]

~21 arcseconds of difference between actual and observed position of the Sun.

“Try supporting this claim with a linked reference and get back to me.” [excerpt]

That wikipoodle article you so kindly linked to.

[TrevorSnowsrap]

Then I would say that the onus is on LeGrande to dispute the article or further clarify his position.

See how easy that was :)

Just kidding.

[Fichori]

“And there are no disagreements over this information?” [excerpt]

Well, LeGrande asserts 2.1°.

The mathematical calculations that mrjesse and I have done only allow for, at most, ~21 arcseconds. (~0.00583333333°)

[LeGrande]

The whole discussion has been about your claim of a 2.1° difference between apparent versus actual position of the Sun due to the rotation of the Earth.

No you are lying Fichori. My claim was that the actual position is not the same as the apparent position. It was mrjesse who was computing the actual angles.

[TrevorSnowsrap]

"Well, LeGrande asserts 2.1°.

The mathematical calculations that mrjesse and I have done only allow for, at most, ~21 arcseconds. (~0.00583333333°)" ========================================================= I was trying to be an neutral observor but you're going to make me work for this.

From the Wiki article:

"is 20.49265", very close to κ"

20.5" ~ 0.00569°, which is not close to 2.1°

Seems like some kind of conversion issue.

[mrjesse]

You still don't understand what stellar aberration is : (

Yeah, me and the rest of the world. I guess you're the only one who understands stellar aberration. Is that the long and the short of it? You've still failed to provide a single reference which says that my understanding is wrong or that shows that yours is correct.

Said mrjesse: Okay I gave it my best shot -- now be a man and give it your best shot! What do you say the difference is between "Stellar Aberration" and "Annual Aberration?"

There is no difference. That was my point.

Fair enough. Words only have meaning because we attribute meaning to them. As long as I know that to you "stellar aberration" and "Annual Aberration" are the same thing, then I'll know what you're talking about when you use the terms. It seems other people do use them interchangeably. But for your information, some people don't use them to mean the same thing exactly. For example, these guys at Stanford make a distinction between the two phrases.

Why don't you just look at the pictures? The pictures and diagrams will tell you everything you need to know.

then I ought to be all set.

So tell me, what part of the physics book do you disagree with?

I'd love to discuss that with you -- but AFTER we get this current issue settled. You've clearly stated that the sun is apparently displaced by 2.1 degrees for an observer on earth at any instant in time due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 lightminutes. If we can't figure out this simple geometry, there's no way we're going to do any good discussing college level physics or my book.

-Jesse

[Fichori]

“The whole discussion has been about your claim of a 2.1° difference between apparent versus actual position of the Sun due to the rotation of the Earth.”

“No you are lying Fichori. My claim was that the actual position is not the same as the apparent position. It was mrjesse who was computing the actual angles.”

Oh really!

Time for an updated refresher!

post 858

[Fichori] If everyone else here went and read a few of your posts from previous debates, would you continue to post on this thread?

post 888

[LeGrande] Of course. I stand behind all of my posts : )

post 1007

[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?

post 1010

[mrjesse] 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?

post 1024

[LeGrande] Why are you ignoring my question? "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?"

Can I safely assume that you agree that the apparent position of the sun is off by apx. 8.3 minutes?

post 1109

[LeGrande] All you have to do is go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointed at the Sun so that it doesn't have a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground (with the same origin point) so that it doesn't have a shadow and measure the angle between the two stakes. If you do it accurately enough the two stakes will be a little over two degrees apart. Which is the difference between the apparent position and actual position of the Sun from your perspective on the Earth.

post 1126

[Fichori] Lets say you had a device that had two arrows, one pointing in the direction of the incoming light of the sun, and the other pointing at the gravitation pull of the sun.
(It doesn't matter how you spin this device, the arrows ALWAYS point DIRECTLY at their respective targets.)

Now lets say its mounted on the north poll.
This devices base rotates at the same speed and on the same axis the earth rotates on.

Your asserting that the optical arrow will point 2.1 degrees behind the gravitation arrow. Correct?

post 1146

[LeGrande] No. They would both point towards the actual position of the Sun. Or close enough for Government work anyway : )

Excerpts from the thread The Sunset of Darwinism

post 488

[LeGrande] You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view. My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

post 489

[ECO] the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

post 496

[LeGrande] MrJesse is claiming that... the sun is in exactly the same place that we see it, when we see it. You seem to agree, according to your equation and statement "the sun is where mrjesse says it is." Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted.

post 542

[LeGrande] Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

post 593

[LeGrande] There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.

post 603

[LeGrande] At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.

post 1347

[Fichori] Your argument the whole time has been that the sun appears to go across the sky every day?

post 1359

[LeGrande] Pretty much that is it : ) Apparent vs the actual position of what we see, using the Earth as our point of reference. It couldn't be much simpler.

post 1362

[Fichori] If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?

post 1415

[LeGrande] Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.

post 1896

[mrjesse] The reason I'm so interested in the 2.1 degrees is because you said it and I'm pretty sure you're outright wrong. And if you knowingly refuse to admit it when you've said something wrong even when you've been caught, how much more unlikely will you refrain from telling me a lie about something I can't disprove -- like ASBE?

post 1902

[LeGrande] Actually you are the one that computed 2.1 degrees. My statement was that the Suns apparent position was not the same as its actual position. Which you now agree is true.

Somebody is lying all right, but it ain't me, and it ain't mrjesse...

[Fichori]

2.1° is how much the Earth turns on its axis in the time it takes the light from the Sun to reach the Earth.

Check out 1959 for some background.