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]

Are you asserting that if you go out at Noon and point a transit directly at the center of the Suns light that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be i.e. in other words could you draw a straight line from the center of the earth through you to the center of the sun? Or in other words if you shot a rifle (that fired an instantaneous bullet) that it would hit the center of the Sun? Or would you have to lead the Sun a little to compensate for the fact that it took the light about 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to your eyes?

I already answered that! As I said before - the sun is displaced by about 20 arcseconds.

In case your thinking is not working, that means that if you pointed at where the sun appears to be, you will be about 20 arcseconds off from pointing at it's actual position. And 20 seconds means "Not zero."

Huh? You tell me to deal with the issue and then change the subject? Why are you moving the Sun out twice the radius of the Solar System, when you don't even understand the original point?

You said that the sun appears 2.1 degrees behind where it actually is at any point in time for an observer on earth. You also said that if it was further, the angle would be greater. You complain about me not answering your questions of the past 2 days - but you still haven't answered my questions from 2 weeks ago or whatever! What sort of game is this? you refuse to answer mine but keep complaining that I don't answer yours?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

This is almost funny : ( Everyone is talking about different things.

Do you agree that an objects apparent position is not the same as its true position? That is what this whole debate is over.

That is not what this whole debate is over. That was a small aspect of it until about 3 months ago when I learned about the 20 arcseconds due to Stellar Aberration, at which point I cheerfully admitted that the sun was not exactly where it appeared because it was about 20 arcseconds displaced. From that point on, the disagreement has been whether or not the sun is displaced 2.1 degrees.

LeGrande did claim that the sun is 2.1 degrees ahead of where it appears to be for an observer on the earth at any given instant due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light to reach the earth from the sun. If the sun orbited the earth -- this would be true. But the sun doesn't really orbit the earth, now does it.

And it was to his absurd claim of 2.1 degrees to which I said "No way, the sun is where it appears to be." but then when I learned about the 20 arcseconds due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67kmph, I then immediately changed my stance to "2.1 degrees? No way. The earth is about 20 arcseconds displaced from where it appears to be." But because LeGrande knows that his other claim doesn't hold water, he keeps going back about the 20 arcseconds.

But any good scientist will accept the facts and change his position accordingly. That's why I immediately changed my position from saying that the sun is exactly where it appears to the sun being apparently displaced by ~20 arcseconds. But my change in understanding of the 20 arcseconds is really irrelevant to his claim of 2.1 degrees.

Originally mrjesse and fichori believed that because the light from an object was continuous, its actual and apparent position were exactly the same.

That's not a true report. Originally I and Fichori had not known about Stellar Aberration -- but upon considering LeGrande's 2.1 degrees and his claimed cause, we were certain that he was wrong. Now that we know about the 20 arcseconds (an arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree) now we say that the sun is apparently displaced by about 20 arcseconds - but still not 2.1 degrees and not even for the reason LeGrande gives.

So I'm super glad I learned about the 20 arcseconds due to transverse velocity. but that doesn't change the fact that LeGrande has claimed 2.1 degrees at any given instant, and that if the sun were farther, the angle would be greater. And yet he refuses to apply that same math to a sun that was, for example 12 light hours away (or Pluto, which at times, is 6.8 light hours away) because he knows that his math would then look completely absurd because nobody would believe that the sun would appear in the east while it's gravitational and actual position were in the west.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Then do this little experiment. Go outside on a sunny day at noon and pound a stake into the ground, so that there is no shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground so that there is no shadow from it either and make it so that the points of the stakes that you drove in the ground meet each other. Measure the angle. If it isn't close to 2.1 degrees, I will publicly and humbly admit that I was wrong.

Will you do the same if it is close to 2.1 degrees?

Can you think of a better demonstration to prove or disprove the assertion?

That's just a clever inverse strawman! All that measures is the angular rate of the rotation of the earth. I already calculated it - about 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes. But the earth could still have a rotational rate even if the sun was within 21 arcseconds of where it appeared! This really isn't very honest of you. We're talking about the angular displacement between actual and apparent position of the sun for an observer on earth at a given instant, and you propose an experiment which compares the apparent position of the sun to the apparent position of the sun 8.3 minutes later?! That's a totally different issue! The question is about the difference between apparent and actual position at the same time -- not apparent position and apparent position at different times! That's a rate not an instantaneous difference between apparent and actual position!

-Jesse

[tpanther]

Too much of science IS concensus.

For instance a small group of people determined Pluto would no longer achieve planetary status and yet not even all astronomers agree with these findings.

Science is affected more by politics than it is by religion and yet many people spend their time overly worried and fixated on their God hate to remotely notice this fact.

[Fichori]

The scientists have forgotten that its the evidence that is supposed to agree, not the scientists.

[Caramelgal]

YEC is both a theological subject and a scientific subject, whereas the neo-Darwinian synthesis is now merely a theological subject, for it has been thoroughly refuted by science. Even the evolutionists are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new theory of evolution.

Really? The TOE has been “thoroughly refuted by science”? Nonsense!

Provide me with even one truly reputable scientific complete refutation for the TOE. And while you are at it, meet my challenge and provide me with one single line of Biblical scripture that supports or proves or even makes the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[tpanther]

good point!

[Fichori]

“Provide me with even one truly reputable scientific complete refutation for the TOE.” [excerpt]

The burden of proof does not rest on the disproving of a scientific theory, but on the proving of the theory.

A scientific hypothesis(unproven theory) is scientifically false until empirically proven.

The TOE has yet to meet that requisite.


The TOE is built on a foundation of philosophical assumptions.

These assumptions do not reflect empirical science.

Something that starts from non-scientific axioms, can never become scientific, regardless of how many individual scientific evidences are selectively attached.


If you use intrinsically flawed axioms and methodologies, the end result will be flawed.

A hypothesis with observable flaws does not become a scientific theory.

The colloquial 'Theory of Evolution' is just that.

A colloquial theory.

Nothing more.

[LeGrande]

Your little experiment does not prove where the actual position of the Sun is.

It only proves that the Earth is either turning or being orbited.

Are you denying that the second stake is pointing to where the Sun actually was when you placed the first stake that pointed to the apparent position of the Sun?

[LeGrande]

That's just a clever inverse strawman! All that measures is the angular rate of the rotation of the earth. I already calculated it - about 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes. But the earth could still have a rotational rate even if the sun was within 21 arcseconds of where it appeared! This really isn't very honest of you. We're talking about the angular displacement between actual and apparent position of the sun for an observer on earth at a given instant, and you propose an experiment which compares the apparent position of the sun to the apparent position of the sun 8.3 minutes later?! That's a totally different issue! The question is about the difference between apparent and actual position at the same time -- not apparent position and apparent position at different times! That's a rate not an instantaneous difference between apparent and actual position!

I reposted your post so that maybe you could see your lack of logic, and I have no idea what an inverse strawman is. The light that you see from the Sun left it 8.3 minutes ago. Simply waiting 8.3 minutes and putting in a second stake is a quick and dirty way of determining where the Sun actually was when you put in the first stake. It is a very simple experiment.

If you don't believe that the angle is 2.1 degrees between the stakes, go outside tomorrow at Noon and prove me wrong : )

[Fichori]

“Are you denying that the second stake is pointing to where the Sun actually was when you placed the first stake that pointed to the apparent position of the Sun?”

Unless someone you don't believe in moves the Sun 2.1° between measurements, then yes, I dispute your alleged 2.1°.

I will assert that anytime you drive a stake into the ground pointing at the apparent position of the Sun, it will be pointing within 21 arcseconds of the Suns actual position.(Not considering atmospheric refraction.)


I asked you a couple of questions in 1980, and you havn't answered them, so I'll ask them again.

You have already admitted that the optical(apparent) and gravitational(actual) positions are essentially the same for an observer on the north poll.

You have adamantly asserted that that this alleged 2.1° difference between the actual and observed position of the Sun is entirely due to the rotation of the Earth.

The only differences between the equator and the north poll are the surface speed and the transverse movement relative to the Sun.

What causes the 2.1°.
Surface speed or transverse movement.

Well, how about it?

[Caramelgal]

“Provide me with even one truly reputable scientific complete refutation for the TOE.” [excerpt]

The burden of proof does not rest on the disproving of a scientific theory, but on the proving of the theory.

You are taking this out of context. I wasn’t asking you or GGG to disprove TOE, I was asking GGG to back up his statement in his post to me with some proof: whereas the neo-Darwinian synthesis is now merely a theological subject, for it has been thoroughly refuted by science. Even the evolutionists are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new theory of evolution.

Again – show me any proof that any reputable scientists currently working in the fields of biology, paleontology, or geology, etc. have thoroughly refuted or abandoned the TOE?

A scientific hypothesis (unproven theory) is scientifically false until empirically proven. The TOE has yet to meet that requisite.

A hypothesis with observable flaws does not become a scientific theory.

Really? You do realize that the theory of gravity has some flaws in it? Just because recent research has discovered some flaws in Newton’s original theory, doesn’t make the whole thing false or gravity just an “unproven theory”. Science doesn’t throw the baby out with the bath water just because theories are sometimes modified or adjusted by newer evidence. In fact Darwin knew nothing about DNA and genomes but the modern study of those fields, rather than refuting Darwin’s observations has supported them.

“Please; give me just one Biblical reference that absolutely and irrefutably dates the age of the Earth or the universe at 6,000 or 10,000 years old.” [excerpt]

What does that have to do with empirical science?

That’s exactly my point. YEC has nothing to do with science. Thanks for backing me up.

If you can empirically demonstrate that Evolution is even posible, I might consider dipping into my savings.

That wasn’t the challenge. I asked you and other YEC’er to “give me just one Biblical reference that absolutely and irrefutably dates the age of the Earth or the universe at 6,000 or 10,000 years old.”

That means an experiment that everybody can do and repeatably get the same results as you.

EVERYBODY? Really? So if I understand you correctly, if you and I can’t duplicate an experiment at home with our “Jr. Mr. Science Kit”, then it can’t be real science?

When I broke my ankle a few years ago, my doctor ordered x-rays and found the fracture that required surgery. I guess I should have told him that since I didn’t have a home x-ray machine in which I could verify his findings myself, surgery would have to wait until I could prove him either right or wrong?

[LeGrande]

“Are you denying that the second stake is pointing to where the Sun actually was when you placed the first stake that pointed to the apparent position of the Sun?”

I will assert that anytime you drive a stake into the ground pointing at the apparent position of the Sun, it will be pointing within 21 arcseconds of the Suns actual position.(Not considering atmospheric refraction.)

Then you would be wrong. When you drive the stake in at Noon it is pointing at the Suns current apparent position and its true position as of 11:51:40 (the time it takes for light to travel from the Sun to the earth) . When you drive in the second stake at 12:08:20, you get the Suns current apparent position and its actual position at Noon.

The first stake gives you the Suns apparent position at Noon and the second stake gives you the Suns true position at Noon. So with both stakes you can now determine the angle between the Suns apparent and actual position at Noon which was apx. 2.1 degrees.

So to summarize both fichori and mrjesse believe that the Sun or any other object in the heavens is exactly where it appears to be (or at least within 21 arcseconds), they are wrong as my simple experiment amply demonstrates.

[morkfork]

The question is about the difference between apparent and actual position at the same time -- not apparent position and apparent position at different times!

Jesse, read special theory of relativity. Clears up your misunderstanding. Light is not instantaneous. Your arguments seem to assume so.

Dude, this is so 1850's. Ask Huygens.

[TrevorSnowsrap]

“The first stake gives you the Suns apparent position at Noon and the second stake gives you the Suns true position at Noon. So with both stakes you can now determine the angle between the Suns apparent and actual position at Noon which was apx. 2.1 degrees.”

Yes, the earth may rotate 2.1 degrees but the angular displacement being talked about is relative to a straight line pointing to the sun which would not be 2.1 degrees. Also, the angular displacement is relative to one’s location on earth. It would be a maximum at the equator but varies according to latitude.

In any case, this angular displacement (2.1 degrees) of the earth when converted to an angular displacement relative to a line pointing toward the sun is quite small (.32") compared to the effects due to the orbit of the earth around the sun (20").

[TrevorSnowsrap]

Hmm, I’m not sure if my previous post is correct.

I can’t come up with the .35” asnwer that is supposedly correct. Oh, well.

[Fichori]

“Hmm, I’m not sure if my previous post is correct.

I can’t come up with the .35” asnwer that is supposedly correct. Oh, well.”

Put this into google:
(calculates Diurnal aberration)

atan(463.8 / 299792485 ) * (180 / pi) degrees in arcseconds

463.8 is the surface speed of the Earth at the equator in meters per second.(changes with the latitude of the observer)

299792485 is the speed of light in meters per second.

The 180/pi is to convert radians into degrees.


The animation is not to scale, but the math is.
(This only accounts for Diurnal aberration)

[Fichori]

“So to summarize both fichori and mrjesse believe that the Sun or any other object in the heavens is exactly where it appears to be (or at least within 21 arcseconds), they are wrong as my simple experiment amply demonstrates.” [excerpt]

Your simple experiment does not measure the gravitational pull of the sun.

The only thing that it proves is that the Earth turns 360° in 24 hours.

LeGrande, I think its time you answered the question I asked you in 1980 and 1991

[Fichori]

You’ve admitted your not a scientist, and it shows.

Theatrics is not science.

[Fichori]

2000