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 ...
Your quotes and some comments…
“Evolution is equivalent to playing in a casino where you collect your winnings but don’t have to pay your losses.”
Sounds excellent!!! Do you have some examples? I wish evolution could get ME a life or even a job like that. All the ones at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, et al have evaporated for the time being. Those lucky execs said “hasta luego” with their lucre thanks to arrangements designed by intelligent, if devious, living beings. They were able to profitably opt out and leave us with the bill.
But in the big casino of evolution, living things can not opt out, can not exit. They have to keep playing. More importantly, as even you seemed to imply (and I would agree), in the long run the player WILL lose: “Now all you need to do is think about the fact that casinos don’t need to cheat in order to make money.” For every prisoner of this casino (and they’re all prisoners)…game over.
The never-observed mutation which theoretically hits the jackpot of increased INFORMATION and function (one step of many required to become a game-changer, a new KIND of organism) would later experience other mutations which would cancel its “winnings.” (As I recall, even evolutionary biologists admit that the great majority of observed mutations are deleterious, with the rest appearing to be neutral in effect.) It would be like one step forward, two steps back. You never get there.
And besides, drawing a straight flush in poker or cranking three cherries on a slot machine are just dumb, meaningless but probabilistically foreseeable events. They don’t seem at all comparable to creating INFORMATION, which necessitates a developer, a sender and a receiver/interpreter, all acting in concert to achieve a GOAL.
The cards and the cherries have no goal.
Your casino analogy just isn’t helping me understand evolution.
Again, the reason I quoted that article was to demonstrate that mutation is not random as you had said. You have already admitted that you use the word 'random' when the word 'probabilistic' is the correct term to accurately describe the phenomenon.
You are either a fool or utterly dishonest. Either way, misrepresenting mutation as being 'random' when it is probabilistic shows you have no interest in approaching the subject honestly.
Please. What you demonstrated is that you could find one guy, who doesn't have any particular standing in the field and frankly seems a little erratic and a bit of a wacko, to agree with your interpretation. I find Dawkins' own account of what went on far more persuasive.
Ten posts later you are still confused about what the authors did, maybe if you read the abstract instead of chopping it up to quote it out of context you would have realized that they assumed mutation based upon common ancestry by looking at the gene, as it exists, in eleven different species. They never actually tested mutation to see if its probabilistic pattern of mutation where any mistake can and will happen, but some are more common than others.
Random, as a definition, includes probabilistic. Your objection is as ridiculous as saying someone who says “7 card stud is a random game” had no interest in approaching the subject honestly.
Mutation is random in the sense that it is probabilistic. Some mutations are made more often than others just as some errors in speaking are more common than others. Copying some DNA is like trying to say “rubber baby buggy bumpers” fast, mistakes are a little more common in those sequences. This doesn't mean that each mutation is somehow preordained and will happen every time, it is probabilistic.
“I asked you to show the Sun orbiting the Earth. You said that you agreed with the 2.1 degree lag if the Sun orbited the earth. Why are you trying to show it with a rotating Earth, you said that you couldn't do that way and I have to agree.” [excerpt]Because that is the model we are working with right now.
“Then falsify their claims, win a Nobel :) Will you pardon me if I don't hold my breath while I am waiting?” [excerpt]And have my name next to Al Gore's?
“Creationism isn't science.” [excerpt]We're not talking about Creationism.
We're not talking about a model.“Not in a two body model : ) ” [excerpt]“I fail to see why you are so upset : ) I am simply agreeing that it doesn't matter whether the sun is orbiting the Earth or the Earth is merely spinning. It is essentially the same thing.” [excerpt]“Your assertion that there is no difference between the Sun orbiting the Earth and the Earth spinning is scientifically false.”
“What does a laser ring gyro prove in a two body model? That either the Earth or the Gyro is rotating? It is the same difference as the Earth/Sun model.” [excerpt]We're still not talking about a model.
“Really you should do yourself a favor and visit the Library at least once in your life : )” [excerpt]I used to go to a library on a regular basis when I lived within walking distance.
“You don't believe Joshua 10:13? "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."” [excerpt]I see your bringing up religion in a scientific debate again.
“Obviously the Bible claims that the Sun was moving around the Earth. You do believe the Bible don't you? It is your ultimate authority isn't it? LOL If you don't believe what the Bible says, then you have my apology.” [excerpt]So does this mean you believe in a global flood that destroyed all of mankind except 8 persons?
“All you have to do is go outside with a transit and an accurate chronometer and take some careful measurements, no faith required. That is the difference between you and me, I believe in reality and you believe in fiction.” [excerpt]That will not tell you the difference in angle between the Suns apparent position and its actual position.
Thank you for the input. I understand the concept that ‘living to reproduce’ shaves the balance of the dice. But perhaps there’s something more. If multiple mutations are required simultaneously, perhaps there is a sensible, albeit, unconventional explanation.
This may sound way out. I suspect that mind over matter may play a small role in mutations. Even a slight role could shift mutations drastically over time. The will of the parents may, perhaps one in a thousand times, shift the odds a fraction. [And subtle intervention of God as well.]
There could be other factors. I’m just not in an argumentive mood tonight. Nor am I ‘playing it safe’ either. — FRegards ....
Most players do lose. Nearly every species we know about is extinct. Estimates of extinct species approach 99 percent of all known species, based on the fossil record.
However, life continues because reproduction overall balances death. What this dynamic produces is changes over time in the characteristics of populations.
If multiple simultaneous mutations are "required" for a species to survive, then the species will go extinct. But this is not how evolution works.
What does happen, and has been observed in controlled laboratory experiments, is that neutral mutations accumulate. This happens all the time in every species, including humans.
Occasionally a mutation occurs that makes unexpected "sense" of one or more neutral mutations, adding some new capability. In retrospect it looks as if three mutations occurred in sequence "in order to" provide the new function. But there is not the slightest evidence of foresight. Else why the tens of thousands of discarded mutations.
This scenario is not theoretical. It has been observed, and may well result in a Nobel Prize.
Interesting. I’ll save your post in my evolution file, along with your post about protein cells.
So we are thinking beyond random mutations then. Glad to hear that. As long as our minds keep reaching, we’ll grow. Without Darwin’s Theory, it would have been difficult to reach this point. At the same time, I think that conventional thinking can ultimately slow down progress. — FRegards for now.
LOL Then why are you wasting your time on FR?
And have my name next to Al Gore's?
What kind of sicko are you!
Hmm, you actually have a point. You are a Freeper which puts you miles ahead of Al Gore : ) I suppose I should apologize for potentially comparing you to Al Gore. That was a below the belt shot.
There was a time when winning the Nobel meant something.
We're still not talking about a model.
Your graphics are models, math is modeling. What are you talking about?
I guess your just so drawn to Christ that you cannot help but bring up the Bible at all hours of the day.
That is how you avoid answering the question, by calling me a Christian? Your cognitive dissonance must be really be acting up.
I used to go to a library on a regular basis when I lived within walking distance.
It doesn't do you any good if you don't read the books : )
So does this mean you believe in a global flood that destroyed all of mankind except 8 persons?
Your ignorance of the Bible is appalling.
Isn't that what you believe happened about 4000 years ago? I play a game that is about that old. Somehow the Chinese managed to avoid that flood. Interesting isn't it : )
That will not tell you the difference in angle between the Suns apparent position and its actual position.
That will only tell you how fast the earth is rotating.
No, I want you to look at the solar system. You can derive everything you need to know. Remember the moons of Jupiter reference (that you didn't want to talk about) it might amaze you what can be deduced from the moons of Jupiter. Galileo did it and so can you. I have faith in you : )
You've admitted to slight of hand trickery before, I have no reason to believe thats not what you've been doing all along.
Yes but it was the truth. Sometimes people have to be shaken out of their preconceived ideas in order to 'see' reality. You will need a lot of shaking :( You wouldn't happen to be a shaker would you?
Fervently defending as science that which is nothing more than faith.
Like I said before, why don't you falsify evolution? If you Creationists are right it should be easy enough to get some DNA samples and make some comparison tests. If you creationists are right, there should no be any commonality in the DNA from different Species. Simple.
But you already know that, don't you? That is why you won't even attempt to falsify TOE. That is the essence of Science, falsification. What we can't falsify we accept, what we can falsify we reject. Rejection is the opposite of faith, but I don't suppose that makes any sense to you.
Fichori - Maybe some other time we can work with the other model. (I plan to do a full particle sim on both models, but I'm to busy at the moment)
Fichori - We're not talking about a model. We are talking about the Sun and the Earth.
I give. I don't think that I am equipped to deal with this kind of cognitive dissonance. May I suggest professional help?
I’ll agree that the Amish aren’t perfect, but neither is our public school system. I, like most people, respect the Amish in general. Isn’t America a great country to have such freedom that people can choose to be Amish and to raise their children that way too? — FRegards ....
Be careful to read what I said and not what you'd like to hear. Mutations have been statistically studied for a century without finding any evidence that they have any correlation whatsoever with the variations that become fixed in populations.
All the evidence is that mutations traverse the available search space.
We weren't talking about graphics or math.“Your graphics are models, math is modeling. What are you talking about?” [excerpt]“We're still not talking about a model.“Not in a two body model : ) ” [excerpt]“I fail to see why you are so upset : ) I am simply agreeing that it doesn't matter whether the sun is orbiting the Earth or the Earth is merely spinning. It is essentially the same thing.” [excerpt]“Your assertion that there is no difference between the Sun orbiting the Earth and the Earth spinning is scientifically false.”
We are talking about the Sun and the Earth.”
I satirically concluded that you were drawn to Christ, not that you were a Christian.“I guess your just so drawn to Christ that you cannot help but bring up the Bible at all hours of the day.”“That is how you avoid answering the question, by calling me a Christian? Your cognitive dissonance must be really be acting up.” [excerpt]
“It doesn't do you any good if you don't read the books : )” [excerpt]To read and be misinformed is much worse than to not read.
“Isn't that what you believe happened about 4000 years ago? I play a game that is about that old. Somehow the Chinese managed to avoid that flood. Interesting isn't it : )” [excerpt]The Chinese think they missed the flood and LeGrande thinks the rotation of the Earth causes a 2.1° discrepancy in the Sun's apparent position.
“No, I want you to look at the solar system. You can derive everything you need to know. Remember the moons of Jupiter reference (that you didn't want to talk about) it might amaze you what can be deduced from the moons of Jupiter. Galileo did it and so can you. I have faith in you : )” [excerpt]The physics of Jupiter and its moons are completely different than the Sun/Earth relationship.
“Yes but it was the truth. Sometimes people have to be shaken out of their preconceived ideas in order to 'see' reality. You will need a lot of shaking :( You wouldn't happen to be a shaker would you?” [excerpt]If you really think you can convince me of your absurd ideas, you've got a rubber brick for a brain.
“Like I said before, why don't you falsify evolution? If you Creationists are right it should be easy enough to get some DNA samples and make some comparison tests. If you creationists are right, there should no be any commonality in the DNA from different Species. Simple.” [excerpt]Faith cannot be scientifically falsified.
“But you already know that, don't you? That is why you won't even attempt to falsify TOE. That is the essence of Science, falsification. What we can't falsify we accept, what we can falsify we reject. Rejection is the opposite of faith, but I don't suppose that makes any sense to you.” [excerpt]Like I said before, Faith cannot be scientifically falsified.
We may not see their paper for a couple years, or see the Nobel Prize for a few years after that....but it will come.
That is the work I had in mind. Did I distort it to the point it could not be recognized?
Regarding your words: “Most (about 99 percent of) players do lose…. However, life continues because reproduction overall balances death. What this dynamic produces is changes over time in the characteristics of populations.”
Any thoughts on how the dynamics of a reproductive system mutated into existence before its first owner died?
Also, you seem to be implying that evolution is about population characteristics changing over time. If you are, then I guess we have no issue. We have tall people and short people, dachshunds and Great Danes, cockatoos and canaries, Herefords and Holsteins. Why, we even have nylon-eating bacteria and non-nylon-eating bacteria. And we can make quite accurate scientific predictions regarding the results of breeding or breeding experiments and OBSERVE those results.
But evolution isn’t about causing great variety within the populations of different kinds of living things.
It’s about causing the populations to begin with.
Any OBSERVATIONS?
Sounds as though you and js1138 have found some common ground, which is nice.
And apparently you have Charles in Charge to thank - “Without Darwin’s Theory, it would have been difficult to reach this point.”
I’m sure all three of us would find common ground in desiring the protection and advancement of science. But I was wondering what else we owe to Darwin in our beloved but besieged field of science.
Maybe I’m having an early onset of Alzheimer’s, but I can’t seem to remember one, single, solitary scientific discovery or technological development, that has had a real impact (good or bad) on our every day lives, for which belief in Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory was indispensable.
Can you?
not at all.
“I give. I don't think that I am equipped to deal with this kind of cognitive dissonance. May I suggest professional help?”Hey, not a bad idea!
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.