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 ...
>>>>Try to focus...you’re pro-censorship, is that right?
No. Just the opposite. However, I will expose a Marxist when I see one.
You can’t be serious.
That’s the same argument that atheists use to question God’s existence.
The issue really is why don’t Christians want Christianity included in schools.
If 85% of Americans are regular church-goers, why aren’t there enough votes to allow the 10 Commandments to be posted on the wall? Why are Muslim prayers required in California schools when students aren’t allowed to carry a Bible? Why are only lies about Christians allowed in schools not the actual history?
60 years ago my mom was told in a public school that Christians burned the library in Alexandria when the historical records all point to the Muslims committing this crime.
You can’t win an arguement saying science isn’t valid based on an exegesis of distorted media summaries of scientific pursuits. There’s nothing in Christianity that opposes science.
Science was created by Christians!
The real issue is that we Christians need to get out and vote our consciences and force our government to do what’s right.
The left has no problem with this but the right stays home every election so they don’t soil their hands. Politics is only dirty if it’s done dirty.
Voting your conscience in an election is not evil.
Just my opinion. I return you to your thread. ;)
Oh goody! Do you want to discuss it, xzins? LOLOL!
Many biologists today are pretty enthused about Tibor Ganti's chemoton model as a possible model of "spontaneous generation." This model evidently bottoms out in chemistry. Evidently this is what makes them so happy.
I haven't read Ganti's book, The Principles of Life, because I just can't afford it (it has a cover price of ~$180 — rather odd for a book that's allegedly "for specialists and non-specialists alike"). Guess I'll have to wait for the paperback.
But there is a good review of the book that grey_whiskers found, and he posted the link a couple weeks ago. The review (by Gert Korthof) purports to give a good overview of Ganti's criteria for life, potential life, death, and non-life, and a description of the chemoton model.
Who knows, it might be fun to discuss! Anyone???
Thanks for the ping, xzins!
"That’s the same argument that atheists use to question God’s existence."Except God is outside of nature, scientists are not.
"The issue really is why don’t Christians want Christianity included in schools."As a Christian, why don't I want Christianity included in public schools?
Chances are that Christianity would be distorted and as a whole, would be worse off than if it had not been taught at all.
(Wolf guarding the sheep?)
Why do Christians allow only atheist teachers?
Why do Christians allow only atheists to control public schools?
We make up 85% of the electorate. We should be able to do whatever we want.
Instead, we waste all our energy playing word games so a few hucksters like Kent Hovind and Michael Behe get to be multi-millionaires.
The question being asked is whether "people" are too dumb to understand evolution.
It is clearly on topic to provide evidence for the affirmative. The inability to follow the relationship between HIV and AIDS is evidence of basic mental deficiency. Either that or a desire to accelerate the deaths of people having the disease.
Have you forgotten who you’re talking to? We have already been all over ERVs and pseudogenes. And in both cases I have demonstrated that they do not support common descent and are much better explained in terms of Creation/ID. And no, I’m not going to start the debate all over. If you wish to refresh your memory do a search of your screenname and my screenname, combined with the term ERV or pseudogene.
==Final death rattle? Funny! The discipline of Biology has never been more productive in terms of data and beneficial products.
Any successess in biology have been made in spite of Darwin’s fairytale, not because of it.
==Do you contend that epigenetic markers are not subject to mutation that can give rise to genetic variation that would be subject to selective pressure?
What epigenetics is demonstrating is that organisms are frontloaded to match their genotype and phenotype to the selective pressures of their environment. This directly contradicts the neo-Darwinian notion that said matches are random.
==So considering that all humans come from a common ancestor, how else did these epigenetic differences arise in different populations except by mutation of this epigenetic marker and natural selection that favored this trait in populations where adult milk drinking would be beneficial?
All humans come from a common HUMAN ancestor. And I have no problem with epigenetic differences between populations. The question is, are these mutations random, or are do they reflect a purposeful, frontloaded capability to adapt to a a range of environmental pressures. I think the evidence overwhelming favors the latter.
Go for it, man!
What evidence? What evidence is there that the region proximal to the lactase gene where the epigenetic marker to shut down lactase digestion after weening is “front loaded” to mutate? Is it “front loaded” to mutate only in human populations that raise milk cows? Why has it persisted only in populations where adult milk drinking is advantageous, other than the fact that in confers a selective advantage?
The ability “front loaded” into living systems that enable them to adapt is obvious from the data. Genetic alleles are subject to mutation giving rise to genetic variation that can be selected for or against by environmental pressures.
I will readily admit I was completely ignorant of the arguments the evos were making with respect to pseudogenes and ERVs being evidence for common descent. But once I looked into the matter, I was able to demonstrate that their arguments were completely bogus, and that you had bought them hook, line and sinker.
So what? Yes, so what. You seem to have forgotten that this blog is supposed to be about the pros & cons of support for MACROEVOLUTION (by the way, if you choose to visit only one website in researching the arguments against evo, do try the site which this particular blog originated/“evolved” from, namely, Creation-Evolution Headlines
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm ).
Forget about showing the irrefutable evidence for bacteria becoming Barry Bonds (over many, many years, of course). The evolutionists aren’t even in agreement on the bacterial ancestry of mitochondria and chloroplasts (contrary to your apparent certainty). But they have their hunches…
[“Their ancestry is not fully understood, but, according to the endosymbiotic theory, mitochondria are descended from ancient bacteria, which were engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells more than a billion years ago.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ]
And why all this arcane stuff about endogenous retroviral sequences, their vestiges, and what they mean? Why not pick something us slower people can better relate to, like eye sight. You know, like “Many different types of animals have eye balls, hence they must have a common ancestor which had eye balls!” Unless you are of a separate denomination of the evo faith which believes in convergent evolution. As in, “No, common eye balls don’t mean common ancestry. The eye balls mutated into existence at different times all over the animal kingdom. Eyes weren’t passed down from a common ancestor, they were added on later in already differentiated animal kinds.”
Take your pick of stories, I suppose.
Speaking of seeing, the last I knew, the best the evolutionism establishment has come up with on the origin of eye sight is….a sun-sensitive patch of skin. That’s right. A bit of skin gets tickled pink by the sun, notices some unidentified environmental advantage from this “stress”, and then really goes on a roll. It keeps mutating in a certain direction until – Voila! – the first eyeball (with its cornea, retina, pupil, aqueous humor, rods, cones, and optic nerve with just the right connection points) greets the world. (And probably sheds a tear of joy!)
I’m not kidding. This is the best they’ve come up with.
I bet you didn’t realize a sunburn could have such long-term advantages.
I’m just waiting for the sunscreen manufacturers to catch on. I can envision the new label on a tube of Coppertone: “Apply liberally over all exposed areas of skin. Warning: if any area of your skin is left unprotected, it may end up LOOKING BACK at you!”
Kind of speaks for itself.
A complete lie, by the way, since I argued this topic with GGG for nearly a week back on the DaveLoneRanger debate thread. How long ago was that?
I do concede that GGG was, and remains, ignorant of the topic.
What explanation do you have for ERV’s showing nested hierarchies?
What explanation do you have for why bacteria increase their mutation rate in response to stress?
Saying you did something is easy. Doing it is something entirely different.
Once again your claims have no reflection in actual reality.
He works in abiogenesis, which is a favorite Creationist tactic (analogous to decrying the Big Bang theory when discussing gravity), but the central question is “Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?”
HOW EVOLUTION WORKS!!!
Well it works through natural selection of genetic variation. Genetic variation is the result of mutation. Bacteria under stress increase their mutation rate, thus increasing the genetic variation that selection can act upon.
If you are, according to yourself, too “slow” to follow the argument then I guess you denser than the average “lay public” because the average “lay public” is quite able to understand evolution through natural selection of genetic variation if it is explained to them and they do not have a philosophical objection to even considering the data.
Ah, yes...Restricting debate...A favored tactic of the Radical Left, also...
Yeah, 'change' (just like Obama). Evolution has just as much depth as the big O. Evolutionists ignore the fact that genetic variation (and mutation) is constrained. Mostly because they don't understand the implications. At the popular level anyway.
"What answer do you have? What? Still no answer? Why would a bacteria under stress intentionally increase its mutation rate?"
The answer is the same, to survive. Why a bacterium does that is not the question. Haven't you clued in to that yet?
Evolutionists continually assert the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent to support their position. I know you don't understand, but that isn't a good thing.
Do you really want the Genesis story debated in science class?
Just curious.
Own your own $hit! - You're the leftist that said it ;o)
Peace, friend... ;)
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.