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?...

[LeGrande]

Stellar Aberration applies to a moving observer.

If the Earth has transverse velocity relative to the Sun, then Stellar Aberration applies.

Let me finish your quote for you since you don't seem to understand what stellar aberration is either.

"At the instant of any observation of an object, the apparent position of the object is displaced from its true position by an amount which depends upon the transverse component of the velocity of the observer, with respect to the vector of the incoming beam of light (i.e., the line actually taken by the light on its path to the observer). In the case of an observer on Earth, the direction of its velocity varies during the year as Earth revolves around the Sun (or strictly speaking, the barycenter of the solar system), and this in turn causes the apparent position of the object to vary. This particular effect is known as annual aberration or stellar aberration"

Obviously you don't understand what stellar aberration is either. It is based on the motion of the Earth around the Sun and how that motion effects observations of other objects not observations of the Sun. Stellar aberration does not apply to the Sun or the Earth.

Atheism is not a disbelief, it is a belief in the non-existence of something.

I don't believe in leprechauns or your God.

You cannot scientifically prove the non-existence of something.

That is correct, I can falsify it however. If you say your God is in my coffee cup, I can look in my coffee cup and see whether that is true or not.

Atheism is therefor, nothing more than a religious Faith.

That is simply meaningless circular logic.

[Fichori]

“Stellar Aberration applies to a moving observer.

If the Earth has transverse velocity relative to the Sun, then Stellar Aberration applies.”

“Let me finish your quote for you since you don't seem to understand what stellar aberration is either.

"At the instant of any observation of an object, the apparent position of the object is displaced from its true position by an amount which depends upon the transverse component of the velocity of the observer, with respect to the vector of the incoming beam of light (i.e., the line actually taken by the light on its path to the observer). In the case of an observer on Earth, the direction of its velocity varies during the year as Earth revolves around the Sun (or strictly speaking, the barycenter of the solar system), and this in turn causes the apparent position of the object to vary. This particular effect is known as annual aberration or stellar aberration"

Obviously you don't understand what stellar aberration is either. It is based on the motion of the Earth around the Sun and how that motion effects observations of other objects not observations of the Sun. Stellar aberration does not apply to the Sun or the Earth.” [excerpt]

From the same article:

A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant deflection of the Sun from its true position by κ 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 κ). Similarly, one could explain the Sun's apparent motion over the background of fixed stars as a (very large) parallax effect.

I suggest you read that entire article, slowly.

You might actually learn something.

“Atheism is not a disbelief, it is a belief in the non-existence of something.”

“I don't believe in leprechauns or your God. ” [excerpt]

So, you don't believe in God, but will you assert that he does not exist?

In other words, He very well may exist, but you just don't believe in Him?

“You cannot scientifically prove the non-existence of something.”

“That is correct, I can falsify it however. If you say your God is in my coffee cup, I can look in my coffee cup and see whether that is true or not. ” [excerpt]

Unless you cannot see God.

Then he might be in your coffee cup, and your assertion that He is not in your coffee cup, would be an assertion of Faith.

[LeGrande]

I suggest you read that entire article, slowly.

What was the point you were trying to make?

I noticed that you seem to be backing away from your claim that Stellar aberration (Annual aberration) can be applied to the Sun. Annual aberration (stellar abberation) is just one of the many forms of aberration.

So, you don't believe in God, but will you assert that he does not exist?

In other words, He very well may exist, but you just don't believe in Him?

Certainly God, Leprechauns and the tooth fairy may exist. It is impossible to prove a negative. To suggest that not 'believing' in the tooth fairy is a form of 'belief' is ludicrous. Assuming that you don't "believe' in the tooth fairy, does that make you a member of the antitooth fairy religion? Or an Anti Fairy?

Unless you cannot see God.

Then he might be in your coffee cup, and your assertion that He is not in your coffee cup, would be an assertion of Faith.

If your assertion is that God cannot be detected, then what is your point? Asserting that something exists that can't be detected exists is laughable : )

[Fichori]

“I noticed that you seem to be backing away from your claim that Stellar aberration (Annual aberration) can be applied to the Sun. Annual aberration (stellar abberation) is just one of the many forms of aberration.” [excerpt]

Am I backing away from the claim that the apparent position of the Sun is shifted due to the aberration of light caused by the speed at which the Earth orbits the Sun?

No.

Annual Aberration applies to the Sun.
(As does Diurnal aberration)

“A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant deflection of the Sun from its true position by κ towards the west (as viewed from Earth), opposite to the apparent motion of the Sun along the ecliptic.”[1]

[mrjesse]

The question remains, do you accept the opinion of experts in other areas or not?

"opinions of experts." Hmm. That sounds like an appeal to authority. Anyway, when an "expert" - self claimed or otherwise - has an opinion, depending on the circumstances and the evidence, I may choose to believe him but it's not a science, it's a faith and he'd better have some good evidence to show me.

Personally, I think your alternative is ridiculously unlikely,

Well, first, what has "my alternative" got to do with anything? Just because there isn't a better story doesn't mean that ASBE or AFN is true! In science, we don't have to have a story of how it happened. If we don't know, then we just say we don't know. Secondly, I'm not teaching "my alternative" as proven scientific fact. It's a faith! I can't come and show you God creating the world! It's a belief.

Which is what ASBE and AFN are - a faith and a belief. For the average person, there is just as much first hand knowledge that proves that all came from nothing as there is first hand knowledge that proves that God created everything.

Otherwise there would be some great evidences, or whatnot or AFN/ASB -- but what do I find? absurd statements being made by atheistic evolutionists. You still have not commented on my comments on WP and the peppered moth. Don't you think they are stretching things a little?

-Jesse

[GourmetDan]

"Are the differences between human DNA and chimp DNA due to mutation? Why are you so afraid of answering the question?"

You can't tell the difference between a created difference and a mutation after-the-fact with no original DNA to compare. Having original DNA to compare would be science. Assumed logical fallacies like 'false dilemma' and 'affirming the consequent' are not a substitute for science.

This is why fallacies cause so much trouble in evolutionary-thinking. Unfortunately, most adherents cannot recognize how completely fallacies are ingrained in evolution.

[GourmetDan]

"And Middle Eastern terrorists learn Creationism in school, not evolution."

Ah yes, the fallacy of appeal to the consequences of a belief.

[allmendream]

How about your fallacy of taking a paper about comparing DNA in different species and thinking it was about the frequency of mutations?

Just how ignorant must one be to do that?

[GourmetDan]

"How about your fallacy of taking a paper about comparing DNA in different species and thinking it was about the frequency of mutations? Just how ignorant must one be to do that?"

You don't argue that mutation is not probabilistic because you know that it is. We have already established that you will use the term 'random' when you understand that probabilistic is the correct term to describe mutation. That is the fallacy of equivocation.

I quoted the only science that was done in that article because that was all that was relevant to the question we were discussing. How the mutations achieved the probabilistic distribution found by the study is where the authors committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You argue in favor of the fallacy because it is irrelevant to the argument about whether it is appropriate to use the term 'random' when you should use probabilistic.

It's clear that you are the one who doesn't understand the difference between science and fallacy.

[allmendream]

But the science you claim was done was never done in that paper. That is the entire point.

Someone else sequenced the p53 gene in those different species and entered it into a databank.

They looked into the databank and compared the sequences for those eleven species, finding that those responsible for the region that would bind to DNA were less likely to be different between species. This was a “dry” experiment. They only played with the sequences with math.

So how is this supposed to determine the frequency of mutation?

Short answer...it doesn't.

[mrjesse]

First I must say that Fichori's response (regarding whether the sun is apparently displaced by 20 arcseconds and whether it is due to Stellar Aberration) -- it is an outstanding response! Great Job, Fichori!

I have no interest in arguing with someone who doesn’t know the difference between Stellar Aberration, radial motion and angular velocity and who has no desire to learn.

I do know the difference. Go see for yourself!

Stellar Aberration: Due to transverse velocity of observer.

"Radial Motion?!" Last time you said "Radial Velocity"!

Radial velocity: is the velocity of an object in the direction of the line of sight (i.e. its speed straight towards you, or away from you). The light of an object with a substantial radial velocity will be subject to Doppler effect.

radial motion: Motion in which a body moves along a line connecting it with an observer or reference point; for example, the motion of stars which move toward or away from the earth without a change in apparent position.

Same thing -- motion towards or away from the observer!

Angular velocity: is the angular velocity is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) which specifies the angular speed, and axis about which an object is rotating.

See? I do know the difference. But what radial motion or velocity has to do with anything I do not know - I suspect you don't know the difference between some of these. But now I've provided enough information you can learn the difference between them.

You have admitted that you were wrong and yet you still persist in trying to change the subject and put words in my mouth when you should be apologizing?

Now wait a second. I've admitted that I had not previously known about the 20 arcseconds or stellar aberration. But my original claim was that your claimed 2.1 degrees was wrong, and that your reason for the 2.1 degrees was wrong. And you have still not proved that your 2.1 degrees was wrong. And what words am I putting in your mouth? if I'm misunderstanding you, then by all means say so! But the fact is that when you first stated the question, you indicated an angular displacement at an instant in time. I assumed you meant the most logical thing and cited back the 2.1 degrees with you both agreed to and repeated back to me and others later. And now you refuse to put this same math onto Pluto or a 12 light hour planet.

The fact that I didn't know about the 20 arcseconds doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on the 2.1 degrees in both cause, direction, AND in quantity! I'm glad I learned about the 20 arcseconds but that has nothing to do with the fact that you claimed a concept and agreed to and stated back 2.1 degrees -- all the while with both the concept and the 2.1 degrees being wrong!

When you have the Lectures in your hands or any College level Physics textbook in your hands get back to me.

Right here I have "Bueche, Principles of Physics, Fourth Edition." It's got a "To the instructor" forward in it. Does that qualify? My father got it (and a chemistry book of equal size) at a yard sale and gave it to me when I was 16 or so. I spent many wonderful hours with those books! (when I wasn't feeding the hogs, milking the cow, or other barnyard chores). I just pulled it from my old-book shelf and found it has 8 scraps of paper marking different favorite sections.

Does that qualify for having a "College level Physics textbook in my hands" so can I get back to you now?

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Stellar Aberration: Due to transverse velocity of observer.

What is the difference between Stellar aberration and Annual aberration and why is annual aberration called annual aberration?

Does that qualify for having a "College level Physics textbook in my hands" so can I get back to you now?

Sure does, now read it : )

[LeGrande]

Annual Aberration applies to the Sun. (As does Diurnal aberration)

“A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant deflection of the Sun from its true position by κ towards the west (as viewed from Earth), opposite to the apparent motion of the Sun along the ecliptic.”[1]

Oh excuse me, the exception generally proves the rule : )

Do you even know why it is called the annual aberration?

[Fichori]

“Do you even know why it is called the annual aberration?” [excerpt]

• Annual aberration is due to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
• Planetary aberration is the combination of aberration and light-time correction.
• Diurnal aberration is due to the rotation of the Earth about its own axis.
• Secular aberration is due to the motion of the Sun and solar system relative to other stars in the galaxy.

If you had just read the article, I wouldn't be having to answer all these stupid questions.

[LeGrande]

If you had just read the article, I wouldn't be having to answer all these stupid questions.

And as usual you didn't answer the question I asked. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it trading insults. Bye : )

[GodGunsGuts]

Placemarker

[Fichori]

I’ve posted answers to your questions.

Your just running out of questions and I’m getting tired of hearing the same questions over and over.

But hey, its not every day an atheist will admit that there might be a God.

[mrjesse]

What is the difference between Stellar aberration and Annual aberration and why is annual aberration called annual aberration?

It looks like some use the two terms interchangeably, while to others there is a difference, and the difference is this:

"Stellar Aberration" is the apparent displacement of a light source do strictly to the observer's transverse velocity -- regardless of whether that transverse velocity is caused by one's ride around the sun as they wait out the year, or whether the observer's transverse velocity is for any other reason - the reason doesn't matter, just the fact that the observer has a transverse velocity.

"Annual Aberration" on the other hand is the same basic thing as Stellar Aberration -- except that the transverse velocity of the observer must be caused by their ride around the sun as they wait out the year. Hence "Annual" -- as in "Yearly."

See this website for some indication of this.

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?"

Sure does, now read it : )

As I said, I used to read in this book as a pastime (along with other scientific books of course) years ago. The book has over 800 pages. And whatever page I open to it's like meeting an old friend. Most of what's in there I'm familiar with already. Is there a certain section you would like me to read again? And besides, isn't this just a distraction method of yours -- try to bury me in pages of reading material? Are you saying that WP and all the other websites that I've cited about stellar aberration and such are all wrong? I mean anybody can tell anybody to go read an endless list of books - but that really doesn't mean a thing. Anyway, below is a table of contents of a similar book (a different edition) and you can tell me if you see a certain section that you think I ought to read. (I copied this from amazon.)

But you never addressed any of the real issues. As Fichori pointed out, WP claims that the sun is constantly apparently deflected from its actual position by about 20 arcseconds due to the earth's transverse velocity as it orbits the sun. Do you agree with them on that? or are they wrong?

The reason I ask is because you said "Stellar aberration ... has almost nothing to do with the Earths velocity. " and yet everything else I'm reading says that the 20 arcseconds is caused by stellar aberration and is caused by the earths' transverse velocity!

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?

It's high (are you?) time you answered some of these questions that you keep skirting around. We could talk on forever but if you keep refusing to answer the important questions then we aren't going to get any where. And it's not that I blame you for not wanting to go anywhere, because with the absurd things you've said, the only place to go is the crow pie deli.

Or maybe it is I who needs to go to the crow pie deli for lunch. But we won't get there if you won't address the issues!

-Jesse

Part One: Mechanics
2 Uniformly Accelerated Motion
3 Newton's Laws of Motion
4 Static Equilibrium
5 Work and Energy
6 Linear Momentum
7 Motion in Circle
8 Rotational Work, Energy and Momentum

Part Two: Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Matter: Oscillations and Waves
9 Mechanical Properties of Matter
10 Temperature and the Kinetic Theory of Gases
11 Thermal Properties of Matter
12 The First Law of Thermodynamics
13 The Second Law of Thermodynamics
14 Vibration and Waves
15 Sound

Part Three: Electricity and Magnetism
16 Electric Forces and Fields
17 Electric Potential
18 Direct-Current Circuits
19 Magnetism
20 Magnetic Induction
21 Alternating-Current Circuits

Part Four: Light and Optics
22 Electromagnetic Waves
23 Geometric Optics: The Reflection and Refraction of Light
24 Wave Optics: Interference and Diffraction
25 Optical Devices

Part Five: Modern Physics
26 Three Revolutionary Concepts
27 Energy Levels and Spectra of Atoms
28 The Atomic Nucleus

[mrjesse]

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.

Caramelgal,

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

-Jesse

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

"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, first, what has "my alternative" got to do with anything?

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.

By the way, you don't know what my theological beliefs are either. Don't make assumptions about "atheistic evolutionists."

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