Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls
Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

Posted on 05/05/2004 11:10:33 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-352 next last
To: bondserv
(The actual number is 7.4 x 10654.   There are indications that some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant.  The current research indicates that these may be up to 10% of such positions, which would indicate that there are only 516 rather than 574 significant amino acid positions, in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10503.)     This is still a pretty good finite approximation for infinity!  The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd. 

This is an approximation to inflinity only in the mind of someone totally ignorant of statistical mechanics. As I've written previiously, in a two ounce crystal of rocksalt, there are 2^(6.022*10^23) possible ways to arrange the sodium and chloride ions. However, the ions only crystallize in one way (exactly alternating ions in three dimensions). The odds against this happening are hugely greater than the odds against getting one of the millions of functional hemoglobin sequences. Yet it happens every time.

The second red herring is this:The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd. 

No one claims it happened by chance. It evolved from a simpler, monomeric globin protein, which evolved from a still simpler protein, etc.

I personally don't have the guts to gamble my eternity that the Bible might be wrong.

Yet he's bet the Bhagavad Gita, Koran and Diamond Sutra are wrong.

281 posted on 05/07/2004 8:13:54 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I believe he was called a "crackpot" and a "crank" by a couple of the evo's.

You do, do you? Then show us where an evo called Fritz Schaefer a crank.

282 posted on 05/07/2004 8:22:23 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I'll see your evo-skeptic (who is a good scientist, by the way) and raise you a Steve. And I know none of your guys have the Big Prize, so the evo-Steves are inevitably going to win this comparison.

Steven Weinberg was educated at Cornell, Copenhagen, and Princeton, and taught at Columbia, Berkeley, M.I.T., and Harvard, where from 1973 to 1982 he was Higgins Professor of Physics. In 1982 he moved to The University of Texas at Austin and founded its Theory Group. At Texas he holds the Josey Regental Chair of Science and is a member of the Physics and Astronomy Departments.

His research has spanned a broad range of topics in quantum field theory, elementary particle physics, and cosmology, and has been honored with numerous awards, including the Nobel Prize in Physics, the National Medal of Science, the Heinemann Prize in Mathematical Physics, the Cresson Medal of the Franklin Institute, the Madison Medal of Princeton University, and the Oppenheimer Prize.

He also holds honorary doctoral degrees from a dozen universities. He is a member of the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society of London, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the International Astronomical Union, and the American Philosophical Society.

In addition to the well-known treatise, Gravitation and Cosmology, he has written several books for general readers, including the prize-winning The First Three Minutes (now translated into 22 foreign languages), The Discovery of Subatomic Particles, and most recently Dreams of a Final Theory. He has written a textbook The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I. and Vol. II.

283 posted on 05/07/2004 8:29:12 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The big prize. Nice one. :)

On a side note, have you seen the latest research on ultra-conserved non-coding DNA?

"These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Haussler said.

284 posted on 05/07/2004 8:53:14 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Then show us where an evo called Fritz Schaefer a crank.

My bad. It was Gentry, not Schaefer.

285 posted on 05/07/2004 9:12:14 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
> I don't claim to know what is in people's minds, except for what they tell me and except for what the Bible says is in their minds.

And then there you go again, demonstrating that the Bible is flawed. Your claim is that those who believe differetnly do so "willfully," because the Bible tells you it's so. Well... it ain't so.

Time to grow up, son.
286 posted on 05/07/2004 9:32:52 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
We will see.
287 posted on 05/07/2004 9:43:46 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
On a side note, have you seen the latest research on ultra-conserved non-coding DNA?

No I hadn't. Thanks for the link; I love mysteries. But it's still a forlorn, God-in-the-gaps type hope that this means anything other than that there's an unknown role for the sequences. The association with coding and regulatory elements suggests some sort of yet-undiscovered regulatory function.

288 posted on 05/07/2004 10:01:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
> The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd.

Blah. I'm always underwhelmed with claims of just how unlikely certain things are, and how that it's arguement in favor of Divinity. Well, consider this thought experiment:
You have a deck of 52 playing cards. Shuffle the deck. Now, lay out Every Single Card. What are the chances of any particular sequence of cards? Somethign like one in 8E67, which is an Astonishingly BIG NUMBER.

Nevertheless... you managed to pull it off. That sequence you produced was vanishingly unlikely, yet you did it with ease. Shuffle again, and deal again. GASP! Another virtual impossibility. Do it again and again, and so long as you don't lose cards, the chances of producing the end result remain vanishingly small... yet you'll do it every single time.

You should only be astonished if you have a specific end sequence in mind in advance, and manage to pull that out.
289 posted on 05/07/2004 10:26:44 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
That sequence you produced was vanishingly unlikely, yet you did it with ease.

If you don't understand anything, then everything is a miracle.

290 posted on 05/07/2004 10:32:20 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
"Probably something along the lines of, "Our 300 voices outweigh the voices of several hundred thousand other scientists who understand that evolution is an established fact."

Theory of evolution.

Law of gravity.

Hmmm. . .evolution is not a law. Apparently, it's not such an established fact after all.

291 posted on 05/07/2004 10:36:17 AM PDT by MEGoody (Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Yawn.
292 posted on 05/07/2004 10:59:36 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
> If you don't understand anything, then everything is a miracle.

In a way, I sometimes envy that in some people. But only for a few seconds at a time.
293 posted on 05/07/2004 11:01:36 AM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Hmmm. . .evolution is not a law. Apparently, it's not such an established fact after all.

You are aware that scientific laws are no more "established facts" than scientific theories, aren't you? That is to say in science a theory doesn't "graduate" to become a "law" when the evidence becomes persuasive.

In science, "laws" are descriptive and "theories" are explanatory. A "law" nothing more than a statement of some empirically observed relationship (hence it is descriptive in nature), while a "theory" is explanatory, in that it is a conceptual framework explaining the mechanics behind a range of related phenomona.

BOTH are held tentatively, pending the potential discovery of refuting evidence.

294 posted on 05/07/2004 11:34:31 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
This is an approximation to inflinity only in the mind of someone totally ignorant of statistical mechanics. (emphasis added)

Bio
Chuck's plans to pursue a doctorate in electrical engineering at Stanford University were interrupted when he received a Congressional appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. Graduating with honors, He took his commission in the Air Force, and joined the Missile Program and eventually became Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles. Chuck made the transition from the military to the private sector when he became a systems engineer with TRW, a large aerospace firm. He then went on to serve as a senior analyst with a non-profit think tank where he conducted projects for the intelligence community and the Department of Defense. During that time, Chuck earned a master's degree in engineering at UCLA, supplementing previous graduate work in applied mathematics, advanced statistics and information sciences.

He also worked for the Ford Motor Company where he established the first international industrial computer network. He has served as a consultant to the Board of Directors of Rockwell International for corporate acquisitions and has also participated in over 100 business ventures as a principal, strategic advisor, or turnaround specialist. During the past 30 years, Chuck has also served on the Board of Directors of over a dozen public companies, and was Chairman and CEO of six of them. You are leaving out a qualifier.

No one claims it happened by chance. It Miraculously evolved from a simpler, monomeric globin protein, which Miraculously evolved from a still simpler protein,(emphasis added)

You need to show exhaustive evidence that this occurs all the time, in many different scenarios, before we swallow that.

295 posted on 05/07/2004 12:31:20 PM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
As I expected, no stat. mech. background (stat. mech. is a branch of chemical physics, not engineering).

No one claims it happened by chance. It Miraculously evolved from a simpler, monomeric globin protein, which Miraculously evolved from a still simpler protein,(emphasis added)

Words added. Altering a direct quotation is pretty damn low, bondserv.

296 posted on 05/07/2004 1:02:32 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
As I expected, no stat. mech. background (stat. mech. is a branch of chemical physics, not engineering).

Chuck earned a master's degree in engineering at UCLA, supplementing previous graduate work in applied mathematics, advanced statistics and information sciences.

Words added. Altering a direct quotation is pretty damn low, bondserv.

Easy Big Guy. I noted that I had added the emphasized text.

297 posted on 05/07/2004 1:14:40 PM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
But when it comes to Creationism... some Conservatives just can't see past that one book that they're told is inerrant, I guess. it's sad, and does not bode well for Conservatives. That's one reason why I get so ticked off, I guess.

You ever here of live and let live. It may be that people find comfort in knowing there is an afterlife and there is a higher power. Not all of being a human is intellectual. We are a spiritual creature as well and there is an irrational side to us. I was an atheist and evolutionist in the past but I found I was denying a part of myself what it needed to be happy, to have hope. The way you describe humans you could just replace us with a Hal9000 and there would be no difference.

What do humans want more than anything else in the world? To be happy. If it makes you happy to be a frothing at the mouth evolutionist intellectual, so be it.

Other people find happiness in other ways.Even Einstein believed intently in the Creator, and he was way smarter than anyone currently alive.

promoting an intellectual obscenity like Creationism.

Right, everyone that lived before you were born is an idiot. But you have all the answers for the rest of us stupid morons. You must be a lot of fun at cocktail parties.
298 posted on 05/07/2004 1:16:21 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
After looking at my post, you are correct that I didn't clearly mention the added text. Forgive me.
299 posted on 05/07/2004 1:16:33 PM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
OK; no problem. I was a bit surprised.

Re: yor question; the homologies between monomeric globins like myoglobin and oligomeric hemoglobins are well established. We don't know what the ultimate ancestry of the globin gene is (it's likely older than a billion years) but we can construct perfectly good phylogenies for the multicellular organism globins. If you accept a phylogenetic tree as evidence for evolution, and we do, then there are no miracles necessary to evolve hemoglobin from monomeric proteins. Where the ancestral globin gene came from is still a mystery.

Some refs.

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~jvfleter/globins/globins.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8587498&dopt=Abstract

http://www.aw-bc.com/mathews/ch07/fi7p23.htm

300 posted on 05/07/2004 1:27:23 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-352 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson