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 ...
What a mess your thinking is.
Hey allmendream, by resorting to theatrics and ad hominem attacks, you effectively prove that you have lost the debate.
I trust your an objective observer, but did you notice that Gourmet Dan claims the paper he sourced that compared a gene sequence between species shows that mutations are not random, while simultaneously claiming it has nothing to do with mutation unless you assume a common ancestor, while rejecting the notion of a common ancestor?
So how does one accomplish such mental gymnastics?
Either these species shared a common ancestor or they didn't. Only if these species shared a common ancestor could the differences in the gene be a result of mutation. So how could this comparison show anything at all about mutation to someone who rejects common ancestry?
Care to take on this subject? Or is declaring GDan the winner all you've got?
You cannot address the issue any better, but immediately resort to ad homonym while accusing me of doing the same (while ignoring the many personal attacks of my opponent).
It appears that ad homonym is all you have. You obviously cannot address the issue but think you know enough to declare a winner.
If you have nothing but that to contribute why don't you go back to arguing about the Sun circling the Earth?
LOL!
The Sun circling the Earth isn’t what was being discussed!
The authors said they used the p53 mutation database. Are you saying that database doesn't really show mutations, but merely differences?
Why do you think there is something wrong with the same gene mutating with similar probabilistic frequency in different species without assuming ancestors-in-common and common descent? Do you believe that genes have a lower rate of mutation because you assume a longer time frame for their existence? Isn't that the fallacy of affirming the consequent again?
Remember that the whole point of referencing that article was to show you that mutation was probabilistic and not random. Of course, we now understand that you agree that mutation is probabilistic and simply choose to use the word 'random' in reference to mutation even though you understand that probabilistic is the correct term.
Please clarify. It is hard to follow your position.
The p53 gene may mutate with the same probabilistic tendencies in all species where it is present. There may be differences in error-correction rates within each species based on other factors, but to categorically state that the differences could only be due to an ancestor-in-common involves several fallacies including, 'argument from ignorance', 'affirming the consequent' and 'false dilemma'.
How many fallacies must you string together before you acknowledge simple ignorance?
I do not believe that your evolutionary-mindset is capable of understanding.
After all of the explanation and examples I have given you, you admit difficulty in understanding. I simply believe you.
What force pulls the Sun around the Earth?
Are differences in DNA between species the result of mutation?
As I have said before, geokineticists always ignore the rest of the universe and geocentrists always include it.
""People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"Are differences in DNA between species the result of mutation?"
As I have said before, it is impossible to tell without original DNA to compare against. Some differences may be due to mutation and some may be due to original differences.
"You don't have any explanation or examples. You refuse to answer rather simple questions and instead start trying to insult me for “not understanding” something that you never satisfactorily explained."
I have explained both questions quite satisfactorily many times. You simply aren't able to understand the explanations.
What force is present in the “rest of the universe” that is capable of pulling the sun around the earth while leaving the earth motionless? It defies the laws of physics that a force could even act on such a massive object (the Sun) while leaving a close by small object unaffected. “Magic” is the only answer as to what force is capable of such.
So now you say that differences between species aren’t due to mutation unless you know the sequence in a hypothetical common ancestor. So how could a comparison between species lead you to “know” anything about the frequency of mutation as you claimed in dozens of posts?
What force (from “the rest of the universe”) could pull the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?
Can looking at the differences in DNA between species tell you about the frequency of mutation?
Sure there was. You're just like the little kid who asks his Dad, "Dad, why is the moon following us?" as they drive along at night. The Dad explains that the moon isn't 'following them', but is very large and very far away and only looks like it is 'following us'. The little kid doesn't think that Dad has given a very good answer when, in fact, Dad has given the correct answer. You are simply like the little kid who isn't capable of understanding and insists on an answer to the wrong question. Nothing I can do about that.
"So now you say that differences between species aren’t due to mutation unless you know the sequence in a hypothetical common ancestor. So how could a comparison between species lead you to “know” anything about the frequency of mutation as you claimed in dozens of posts?"
Again, they used the p53 mutation database to identify mutations.
"What force (from “the rest of the universe”) could pull the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?"
"But why is the moon following us, Daddy?"
"Can looking at the differences in DNA between species tell you about the frequency of mutation?"
Again, they used the p53 mutation database as clearly stated in the article.
You have been shown to use the word 'random' when you know that the term probabilistic is correct.
You have claimed that they identified differences merely by comparing genomes when the article clearly said they used the p53 mutation database.
And you insist on asking the wrong question wrt geocentricity.
"But why is the moon following us, Daddy?"
Again, even in a geokinetic model the earth does not orbit the sun, but the center of gravity of the earth-sun system. Include the mass of the rest of the planets and the center changes. Include the mass of the rest of the universe and the center changes again. Since the solar-system is a mere point in terms of the vastness of the universe, it only takes a very small mass imbalance to move the center of gravity from within the sun to the earth and hence a geocentric model. This is what Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis understand that you do not.
"To you it is the “wrong” question because you have no answer for it. Your Geocentric “model” is hilariously inept."
Again, geokineticists always ignore the rest of the universe while geocentrists always consider it. To ask what force 'drags the sun around the earth' is an absolutely uninformed and erroneous question akin to "Why is the moon following us, Daddy?". This is why Max Born said,
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
Your failure to understand this proves my point.
Considering their proximity and mass no gravitational force could exert enough force to pull the sun around the earth while leaving the earth motionless.
It would have to be MAGICAL gravity.
Not as an answer to your child-like question however, because you don't understand the questions, much less the answers.
"Why is the moon following us, Daddy?"
"Considering their proximity and mass no gravitational force could exert enough force to pull the sun around the earth while leaving the earth motionless."
And neither I nor any of the sources I quoted said that gravity pulls the sun around the earth. You simply aren't able to understand the problem or the answer but simply repeat the child-like question.
"But Daddy, why is the moon following us?!"
"It would have to be MAGICAL gravity."
You're so cute when you're disingenuous.
As George Ellis put it,
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
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.