Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by 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?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Help me out here guys. I’ve been trying to follow your debate and I’ve lost track of what the original argument was. Briefly and succinctly could each of you state the following and answer: The Earth orbits the Sun – Yes or No?
Anyone else on this thread that care to chime in with a simple Yes or No are welcome to reply as well.
Thank you.
That's the parallel question to the thread title - yes or no?
You might think so, but Bill Dembski bans people from his website for making that argument. He calls ID the big tent.
Personally I don't care what people believe so long as they do science bnefore talking about science. We've waited 200 years for ID to present some evidence or at least some suggestions for research, but no luck so far.
They compared a sequence in eleven different species.
When they spoke of “mutation” that was ASSUMED based upon common ancestry. A Creationist would say that those differences were DESIGNED from the BEGINNING, not mutated from a common ancestor.
The paper showed absolutely nothing about how mutations happen.
The paper was about the protein p53 in eleven different species and a comparison of those differences. Those differences were not evenly distributed. One must assume common ancestry to think it tells you anything about mutation (i.e. which mutations of the p53 gene are ‘allowed’).
Do you assume common ancestry? Because you might have a point if you do (a wrong one). If your not assuming common ancestry than the paper had NOTHING to do with MUTATION at any time from the beginning of time.
Will this ever sink in, or do I have to go line by line through the paper abstract again and explain it to you?
Depends on when you want to measure 'relative frequency'. Before error-correction mechanisms in the cell or after. I did not assume that selection had anything to do with the probabilistic frequencies noted. You do and want to call them 'random'. They are not random, they are probabilistic.
" They compared a sequence in eleven different species. When they spoke of “mutation” that was ASSUMED based upon common ancestry."
Yes, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I don't subscribe to it although apparently scientists can fall into such a fallacy and be published in a peer-reviewed journal as long as they conform to the principles of philosophical naturalism.
"A Creationist would say that those differences were DESIGNED from the BEGINNING, not mutated from a common ancestor."
Wrong again. A creationist would say that mutations occurred probabilistically (not randomly) in different species and would not assume 'common descent' as it was fallaciously assumed in the paper.
" The paper showed absolutely nothing about how mutations happen. The paper was about the protein p53 in eleven different species and a comparison of those differences. Those differences were not evenly distributed."
That's correct. The mutations were probabilistic with certain ones occurring more often than others. They certainly weren't 'random' across the gene. That's why I cited it for you. That was before you admitted that you used the word 'random' in place of the correct term, probabilistic.
One must assume common ancestry to think it tells you anything about mutation (i.e. which mutations of the p53 gene are ‘allowed’).
It is not necessary to assume a common ancestry. One can also assume that mutations occur probabilistically (not randomly) in the same gene in different species genomes.
"Will this ever sink in, or do I have to go line by line through the paper abstract again and explain it to you?"
The real question before us is whether you will ever admit that you misrepresent the term 'random' when you should use the term probabilistic to describe mutation.
The differences in p53 protein in a badger,bear, wolf, human, chicken,cow, cat, etc are not evenly distributed. There are less differences in the region of the protein that binds to DNA.
This is what the paper you cited says.
It doesn't say anything about mutation unless you assume common ancestry.
Anybody home in there?
Random: 2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
That is the apparent displacement.
Stellar Aberration and the stars are more complicated then with the sun because the earth's velocity relative to the stars changes. But in any case, the stars still appear ahead of their actual position due to the earth's relative transverse velocity. But with the sun, since the earth orbits it, the sun's position would be always apparently about 20 arcseconds ahead of its actual position, because the earth is always going about the same transverse velocity relative to the sun.
The point you seem to be missing is the direction of the aberration. With the Stars it goes back and forth, with the Sun it is constant.
Well, to be more accurate, the stellar aberration of the earth's 500KMPH is cancels out exactly the Time-Light Correction caused by the sun's 500KMPH. Go do the math. or if you doubt me I can do up an animation demonstrating it. But the light actually takes a diagonal path from the sun to the earth when they are moving along side by side at 500KMPH. At least that's my understanding of it.
Again the Light from the Sun has nothing to do with Stellar Aberration. They don't factor in the 500,000 mph into Stellar aberration because they are using the Sun as the coordinate center (as if it is fixed). Even the 500,000 mph is not accurate because our galaxy is orbiting the center of the Universe at a high rate of speed.
With the Sun fixed as the coordinate center the direction of the earths orbit at 67,000 mph causes the stellar aberration to reverses itself at any given 6 month period because the Earth is traveling in the opposite direction relative to the Sun.
First off, stellar aberration applies to Stars apparent position ...
The Sun is a star. The earth has a 67Kmph transverse velocity compared to the sun. Why wouldn't the sun's apparent angular position be displaced by about 20 arcseconds at any instant in time for an observer on the earth?
Yes of course the Sun is a Star (something that wasn't known to the writers of the Bible). The Earths orbit of the Sun is constant. Stellar aberration refers to the fact that the Earths direction reverses itself every 6 months. In other words in the Spring the Earth is traveling East at 67 thousand mph and in the Fall the Earth is traveling West(180 degrees different) at 67 thousand mph. It could also be stated another way, that in the Spring the Earth is traveling west at 567,000 mph and in the Fall the Earth is traveling west at 433,000 mph if you wanted to use the Earth as the center of our moving coordinate system.
Just for informational purposes mrjesses, the reason distance isn't important is because the light rays are simply assumed to be parallel from such distant objects.
I don't know why you keep bringing up the rotation of the earth. Are you strawmanning and saying that I said that the rotation of the earth does something besides add or subtract about a thousand miles an hour to an observer's transverse velocity...?
I never said that the rotation of the Earth had anything to do with the velocity of the Earth's orbit around the Sun or that you said it. What I am saying is that they are two different motions, that concept seems to confuse you for some reason.
First of all, when we when we started this discussion, I did not know about Stellar Aberration. If I had, I would have said what I've been saying -- that the sun is within 21 arcseconds of where it appears, and that the displacement is not for the reason you say. But just because I didn't know about Stellar Aberration does not mean that your claim of 2.1 degrees was right - nor does it mean that your claimed cause of the 2.1 degrees was correct - and neither does it mean that I was wrong to decry your claim as wrong. I still claim that your claim of 2.1 degrees is wrong!
At least you admit that you were ignorant of a specific aberration and you are no longer claiming that the Sun is where it appears to be which was my point in the beginning.
You are the one who seems to be fixated on the 2.1 degrees without even understanding the basic concepts, but at least we have made some progress from the Merry Go Round days.
But we are not just squabbling over amount of aberration. The aberration that is there has absolutely nowheres near your claimed 2.1 degrees AND it's not even for the same reason as you claim your 2.1 degrees!
First off I am the one that told you about Stellar Aberration as another example of aberration, which happens to be different than the aberration caused by the Earths orbital velocity around the Sun. They are two different aberrations. And both are different than the aberration caused by the rotation of the Earth. When I try to use analogies try and not confuse them with the actual example. Analogies are rarely exact representations.
Like I said before, it's like if somebody called me and tells me that my driveway is flooded, and I say "No it isn't! It's dry!" and they say Go check and see if it's dry. Then I come back and tell them "Okay, There are 4 small rain drops on it, otherwise it's dry."
Now that is an example of a bad analogy. A better analogy would be if someone is pregnant or not. They can't be just a little bit pregnant. But to use your example, I said it rained and you claimed that it didn't, but when you checked your driveway you found rain drops on it. Verifying that it had indeed rained, unless your neighbor had turned on his sprinklers.
Seriously, are you high on something? Why do you keep coming back to issues like the fact that I didn't know about the 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration? Now I do know and have revised my arguments to allow for it
Then why are you arguing with me then? My initial statement was that the apparent position of the Sun and the actual position of the Sun are different. Apparently you now agree with that statement. Granted it is for a different reason, but the basic truth remains.
I almost feel like a giant mentally arm wrestling a 5 year old.
It is called projection and it is a common failing of creationists.
So how about it - At a given instant in time for an observer on earth, what would be the apparent displacement for Pluto or for a reasonably stationary planet 12 light hours away? What is the name of the 2.1 degree aberration you talk about? Can you show a single supporting scientific paper or research? Or are you big enough to admit that you have no proof?
I have told you from the beginning that I am not going to make an appeal to authority. Science isn't based on proof. Science is based on falsification. I am simply pointing out your errors in thinking. If you want me to answer your Pluto question you will simply have to be much more specific as to when and which frame of reference you are using.
It's no wonder that science in our classroom is in such shambles. You've astounded me with your willingness to make absurd statements which you cannot back up with even one single scientific research. But I have no doubt that evolutionary atheistic scientists across the country behave just the same as you, leaving their poor bewildered students completely confused.
Again it is simply projection on your part, or as Shakespeare said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Projecting your fuzzy thinking onto others says more about you than you realize.
Seriously, you need to get a basic physics education. May I again suggest Feynmans Lectures on Physics. I know that you feel that the Bible has all the physics that you need, but you might be surprised at some of the insights that can be gained from a college level physics text book, that you can't get from the Bible.
Yes, the Earth orbits the Sun and the Bible is wrong that the Sun orbits the Earth.
Where you are probably confused is in my assertion that in a two body model it makes no difference which body is circling the other or if one body is simply spinning. Most mathematical models are simplifications to make it easier to understand the basic principles and concepts. I am not smart enough to solve 3 body problems, unless they are very simple : (
It was the Pope himself who agreed to the jailing of Galileo.
Wow! I am really impressed by the depth of your argument : )
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?post 1024
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?[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?"post 1109
Can I safely assume that you agree that the apparent position of the sun is off by apx. 8.3 minutes?[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.post 1146
(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?[LeGrande] No. They would both point towards the actual position of the Sun. Or close enough for Government work anyway : )post 1347
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.[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.
Since you had time for a refresher, have you completed the diagram with the Sun orbiting the Earth showing the 2.1 degree aberration?
“Since you had time for a refresher, have you completed the diagram with the Sun orbiting the Earth showing the 2.1 degree aberration?”According to you, the Sun does not need to orbit the Earth for there to be a 2.1° difference between the observed and actual position.
Why do you believe this?
"It doesn't say anything about mutation unless you assume common ancestry."
Sure it does. It says that mutation is probabilistic, not random.
Did these differences between humans chimps and gorillas arise by mutation or were they designed differently from the beginning?
If they were designed differently from the beginning then this difference was not EVER the result of mutation.
Only if humans, chimps and gorillas had a common ancestor can one assume that these differences were due to mutations from the sequence that was present in the common ancestor.
I can't imagine what would possibly fill the bill to your satisfaction. I remember someone once pointed you to a vast library of articles on evolution, and you complained that there were too many. I think I've offered you the fossil sequence for the evolution of the horse--I forget what your objection to that was. And I'm sure you've been reading these threads long enough to have read about the pattern of ERV insertions seen in gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. It's all these things and thousands more taken together--and, more importantly, working together--that is the evidence for evolution.
So let me turn the question around: what kind of evidence that you can see and know, that wouldn't require you to have confidence in the work of people you've never met, would you accept? Do you really expect to be able to watch a dog give birth to a goat? Or what?
You claimed that if the Sun orbited the Earth then the 2.1 degree difference would be correct and that the only reason you didn’t do it before was because of lack of time. Since you obviously have the time now, show it : )
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.