Skip to comments.Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?
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 Darwins natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. Thats 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 ...
So he wasn't a librarian?
Are you still suggesting that displays of strength and agressiveness play no role in human mating success?
I’m still waiting for the Gov’t to recognize the “Temple of Darwin” and the “religion of evolution” so we can get the same tax breaks!
the same Michael Behe who admitted under oath that ID was on equal “scientific” footing with astrology?
==Im still waiting for the Govt to recognize the Temple of Darwin and the religion of evolution so we can get the same tax breaks!
The Temple of Darwin should get the same tax exemptions as all other religions. However, they should not get any government funding, and their religion should not be taught under the guise of “science” in our public schools.
Behe has contributed to the opposition in both his recent court appearances. Not a good sign considering he is the only “untainted” advocate for ID who can appear in court.
But I am more interested in what folks are saying about his latest book, The Edge of Evolution. Apparently there are people who havent’t heard how his argument turned out when subjected to the laboratory.
Behe: “Teach Darwin’s elegant theory. ...If I were teaching a high school biology course, I certainly would want my students to understand Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains antibiotic resistance and a lot of other things. I would want them to know the many similarities among organisms that are interpreted in terms of common descent, as well as to understand the laboratory experiments that show organisms changing in response to selective pressure.”
That, I think, displays Behe’s objectivity when he mathematically dissects evolution. And I agree that Darwin’s Theory was brilliant considering what little technology he had access to.
What makes me ‘paranoid’ [your word] is that the same college which produced the Kelo Court also produces evolution zealots. Colleges do not teach our ‘leaders’ enough to lead wisely. Nor is college able to create an education Utopia. From kindergarten to college, our education system is broken and anti-Christian.
Are you ever going to tell us what you think Behe's best argument is?
Then just lay out the problem, being specific about times, angles and the frame of reference : ) Specifically which time you are talking about, i.e. the time the light is reflected from Pluto or the time your eyes actually see the reflected light, and what your earth based angular references are.
Were not talking about Jupiter's moons. Were talking about the sun and its alleged 2.1 degrees, and Pluto along with its 102 degrees.
If you would read the Feynman reference, you would see that they are all basically the same problem : ) The Feynman reference is a little more complicated of course.
The Sun does appear to rise in the East and set in the West, and its gravitational pull is synchronized within 21 arcseconds of its apparent position.
What is your frame of reference for the 21 arc second discrepancy? I am guessing that you are referring to the earths orbital speed of 30 km/sec to get your 21 arc seconds. If that is the case you are correct, but it should be added the angular component that we are talking about.
does the 2.1 degrees come from the Sun's motion through the galaxy?
Does it come from the rotation of the earth? (would it still be present of the Sun was completely stationary?)
It is from the earths rotation of course. We are using the Earth as our frame of reference. If the Earth wasn't rotating the Sun would be stationary, very much like the Earth is stationary to an observer whose frame of reference is the moon. If you were standing on the Moon you would see a stationary, spinning Earth.
If it is true that the apparent position of the sun and its actual position are separated by 2.1 degrees, Wikipedia, Nasa, etc, should list it as a common fact.
Because we are talking about 'APPARENT' position which is irrelevant to the actual position. At any given time I think I could find two observers on the Earth one of whom could truthfully tell me that the Sun is due East at 90º and the other who could tell me that the Sun is due West at 180º It is a fact, but it is irrelevant to astronomers or anyone else for that matter : ) That is why you don't see it in Wikipedia.
The very first thing Astronomers try to do is factor out the Earths rotation and orbital speed and position. Only then do they try to figure out where things are : )
LeGrande, Your an atheist.
That's "you're" and thank you : )
All you have put forward is slight of hand logic that does not hold up to scrutiny.
Slight of hand logic? All you have to do is go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointed at the Sun so that it doesn't have a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground (with the same origin point) so that it doesn't have a shadow and measure the angle between the two stakes. If you do it accurately enough the two stakes will be a little over two degrees apart. Which is the difference between the apparent position and actual position of the Sun from your perspective on the Earth.
“Look, I haven’t said anything negative to you or about you, nor have I said anything about Behe.”
Please don’t take my crack personally. I would just be embarassed to be on the same side as the author who wrote the headline of this thread.
As for simultaneous mutations— for them all to just happen to work in concert that creates a sophisticated organ, the odds are astronomically low, even when you factor in millions of years. I had not realized that when my science/biology teachers taught me evolution in schools. I walked out being pro-abortion, thinking of myself as an animal, and lacking morals. I still pay a heavy price for having been an evolutionist who did not look at myself the way I should.
I was an ‘animal for God’ who feared the ‘fragile planet’ more than I loved my fellow man.
Can you cite a claim made by biologists that includes "simultaneous mutations working in concert to create a complex organ"?
I've been in these debates for five years or more and have never seen any such claim.
Behe produced various “irreducibly complex” mechanisms, of which there are thousands— complex cellular structures, blood-clotting mechanisms, and the eye, among others. A bacterial motor, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless. An animal cell's whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap, with far fewer necessary components than a cilium or flagellum. Though there are only a few parts to a mousetrap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve any function whatsoever.[snip] [page 204]
Well, for a start, Coulter is simply factually wrong. There are subsets of the flagellum in living bacteria that do useful things. There are also many gradations of eyes and blood clotting systems.
The claim is simply not true.
What a bizarre rant. How can you say that “evos” demand Scripture be taken literally? Obviously, the evolutionary model doesn’t describe a world in which there is a man and cattle but no woman. Evolution demands a different (some would say deeper) understanding of Scripture than that it’s a simple narrative of events.
But we’re told time and again here that evolution can’t be true because it conflicts with that simple narrative. The people saying that have to go through all kinds of contortions to make the narrative consistent—oh, this verb must be in the pluperfect even though Hebrew doesn’t have a pluperfect, and you have to believe the six days part but ignore that part about the world being a circle, and on and on. But they do, because they demand that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Meanwhile, plenty of “evos” explain how they take the Bible to be the “literal Truth” without being literally true.
And then you come along and claim exactly the opposite. Very bizarre.
You must have missed the dozens upon dozens of rants about the earth being 6000-10000 years old!
Matt Damon comes to mind when discussing Sarah Palin: “I need to know if she believes the earth is 6000 years old, because she’ll have access to nukes”.
Where in the constitution does it give churches tax breaks?
Wasn’t it you that said you weren’t going to bring this up?
First of all church goers DO PAY taxes, just like everyone else! Most churches collect money and then turn around and help people with it. (Of course there are FALSE churches that collect money and then their leadership buys limos and million dollar homes...but that’s a different ball of wax)
SO what purpose does it serve to pay taxes on charity that will ultimately go all too often to govt waste ANYWAY?
And let me get this straight, it’s not bad enough Christians pay for failed gubmint SCHOOL taxes AND are responsible for sending their kids to Christian schools or homeschool on top of it, but you think they should pay taxes TWICE on their payrolls and then all over again in church also?
Backwards liberal thinking. The question shouldn’t be why the government doesn’t tax churches but why the government taxes income. Last I heard it was illegal for the government to collect income tax.
But try to fight it and find out what happens.
I'm gonna tweak you a bit - :)
I think the 16th amendment was ratified in 1909... how old are you?
There are other evolutionists who conceded that Behe had a point. Nor is Behe the only one. More another day. The problem isn’t with evolution. The problem is the ‘must be fact’ crowd who are forever obgligated to justify their insistence on how a child must be educated.
— FRegards ....
All right LeGrande, mrjessse asked a simple question.
“does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won’t even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?” —mrjesse
Answer the question, yes or no.
Enough beating around the bush.
A better question about Pluto is why is it no longer considered a planet?
And since some astronomers disagree with the powers that be majority, is it or is it not a planet? Who deides? After all, I keep hearing the minority are protected from the majority by our Constitution!
And how do they teach in school one day pluto is a planet, but the next day that it is not, when Pluto didn’t change at all?
Who gets to decide these things?
Is science concensus?
What happens when exactly half agree and half disagree with Pluto’s newfound demotion?
What happens when someone decides Pluto should lose it’s name all together since it’s no longer worthy?
Can we have a discussion in which you make a point and we discuss it without changing the topic?
Once again you post falsely about my thinking. Please! Also, you post shows that you do not understand the tax codes. Even if an income tax was enforced (which I did say I supported) payrolls are a deduction and the church would not pay tax on that. It would be the same as now.
Please acknowledge that this is where my complaint originated as I posted in my original post on this topic before you set out on your rants of distortion.
Im not convinced yet that human females prefer librarians.
Except of course hypocrat (that would be the neo-democrat party) women.
One of these so-called feminists couldn’t bring herself to admit that Palin was a real step forward for women, because she didn’t fit their worldview.
How can you be so critical of the science community when you have so little understanding of its processes.
Then just lay out the problem, being specific about times, angles and the frame of reference : ) Specifically which time you are talking about, i.e. the time the light is reflected from Pluto or the time your eyes actually see the reflected light, and what your earth based angular references are. [excerpt]For simplicity, imagine all the planets/sun were stationary, except the earth was rotating 360 degrees per 24 hours.
If you would read the Feynman reference, you would see that they are all basically the same problem : ) The Feynman reference is a little more complicated of course. [excerpt]Post a link.
What is your frame of reference for the 21 arc second discrepancy? I am guessing that you are referring to the earths orbital speed of 30 km/sec to get your 21 arc seconds. If that is the case you are correct, but it should be added the angular component that we are talking about. [excerpt]Annual aberration(earth's orbit around the sun) is 20.49552 arcseconds, or 0.0056932 degrees.
It is from the earths rotation of course. We are using the Earth as our frame of reference. If the Earth wasn't rotating the Sun would be stationary, very much like the Earth is stationary to an observer whose frame of reference is the moon. If you were standing on the Moon you would see a stationary, spinning Earth. [excerpt]Lets say you had a device that had two arrows, one pointing in the direction of the incoming light of the sun, and the other pointing at the gravitation pull of the sun.
Because we are talking about 'APPARENT' position which is irrelevant to the actual position. At any given time I think I could find two observers on the Earth one of whom could truthfully tell me that the Sun is due East at 90º and the other who could tell me that the Sun is due West at 180º It is a fact, but it is irrelevant to astronomers or anyone else for that matter : ) That is why you don't see it in Wikipedia. [excerpt]Actually, we are talking about the direction of incoming light from the sun versus the direction of its gravitational pull.
Slight of hand logic? All you have to do is go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointed at the Sun so that it doesn't have a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground (with the same origin point) so that it doesn't have a shadow and measure the angle between the two stakes. If you do it accurately enough the two stakes will be a little over two degrees apart. Which is the difference between the apparent position and actual position of the Sun from your perspective on the Earth. [excerpt]I know what 2.1 degrees looks like.
Since, in one passage, the English translation was inadequate, hed prefer to throw the whole bible out, or at least require that it not be published in English (like the Chicoms do), ——————MrB
Of course you are misrepresenting my preference. I think that comes under the heading of bearing false witness, one of the sins for which you will be held accountable for.
You remind me of the clown I just saw on Neal Cavuto claiming: “that’s not what I said!!!!!!!” when asked if the richest who already pay the most taxes are NOT patriotic if they don’t pay even more taxes, after HE JUST GOT THROUGH DEFENDING JOE BIDEN FOR SAYING PAYING MORE TAXES IS PATRIOTIC!
Hypocrats, what a buncha loons!
Except for Conan the Librarian.
I gave up on getting an honest answer as to where he was coming from, ie, what he would want us to do about on the inadequate English translation problem.
Mature bible students know that you interpret the fuzzy section in light of the clear passages. Or, when you encounter something you don’t understand, you can go to the “complete” translation of the original language.
I agree. This re-ordering of the Solar system is for the birds.
Who gets to decide these things?
Is science concensus?
Sadly some 'science' seems to be : ( Globul warming springs to mind.
What happens when exactly half agree and half disagree with Plutos newfound demotion?
Well then we have a positron/electron creation : )
What happens when someone decides Pluto should lose its name all together since its no longer worthy?
When you are on a roll, you are on a roll : ) I guess Disney will have to fight it out in court!
That's not what I said and your repeating your lie doesn't make it so. Please post where I said that or go home.
What really ticks me off is that people get sued when they want to think beyond evolution to teach children about its warts.
I no of no one that gets sued for that. In fact, there are lots of home schoolers and private (religious) schools that teach that and are not sued. In fact, there are published textbooks that do just that and no one is trying to get them banned by court order.
This truly beats all I’ve ever seen!
The very REASON kids are run off from failed godless govt schools is because we went from no prayer in school to kids being threatened with legal action if they mention Jesus during graduation to removing Christmas from school calendars to other madness godless liberal idiocy.
(Not to mention of just how FAILED they are academically!)
And I think at least 3 cases are on this thread ALONE!
Pluto has been voted off the island.
The distant, ice-covered world is no longer a true planet, according to a new definition of the term voted on by scientists today.
“Whoa! Pluto’s dead,” said astronomer Mike Brown, of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, as he watched a Webcast of the vote. “There are finally, officially, eight planets in the solar system.”
In a move that’s already generating controversy and will force textbooks to be rewritten, Pluto will now be dubbed a dwarf planet.
But it’s no longer part of an exclusive club, since there are more than 40 of these dwarfs, including the large asteroid Ceres and 2003 UB313, nicknamed Xenaa distant object slightly larger than Pluto discovered by Brown last year.
“We know of 44” dwarf planets so far, Brown said. “We will find hundreds. It’s a very huge category.”
A clear majority of researchers voted for the new definition at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague, in the Czech Republic. The IAU decides the official names of all celestial bodies.
The tough decision comes after a multiyear search for a scientific definition of the word “planet.” The term never had an official meaning before.
What Is a Planet Today?
According to the new definition, a full-fledged planet is an object that orbits the sun and is large enough to have become round due to the force of its own gravity. In addition, a planet has to dominate the neighborhood around its orbit.
Pluto has been demoted because it does not dominate its neighborhood. Charon, its large “moon,” is only about half the size of Pluto, while all the true planets are far larger than their moons.
In addition, bodies that dominate their neighborhoods, “sweep up” asteroids, comets, and other debris, clearing a path along their orbits. By contrast, Pluto’s orbit is somewhat untidy.
1. Mr. Behe
Who are the other two?
(which I did NOT say I supported)
School choice is the only fair way to have children educated. Christians are tax payers too.
——Arthur Wildfire! March
I am for school choice. We sent our daughter to one of the best Christian schools in the area. OTOH, the tax breaks for churches should be limited. I have no problem with giving small churches a break but not the mega-churches that that are more business than religion. The biggest example of them all is Obama’s church.-—ColdWater
No you’re not! Not even close! You’re for strict godless liberal control of government run schools and if someone disagrees, then it’s their responsibility to pay for godless liberal schools AND private school.
But I’m curious, if you sent your daughter to a Christian school, isn’t she now hopelessly proselytized? Or is she “full of garbage”? Because this is what you said in post #1038!!!!!
Oh, you mean the class taught by a phys ed instructor that had no training in the sciences or philosophy and the course used only video-tapes which presented the creationist’s side as fact and did not present both sides and the course that argued against evolution by presenting ‘facts’ to the contrary which would make it a ‘science’ course not a philosophy course. Oh yeah, this was not about philosophy but a crude attempt to put out garbage by an unqualified phys ed instructor (who by the way, just happened to be the wife of a local minister and a proponent of creationism). You can teach the garbage all you want. That does not mean you have the right to use taxpayer dollars for that and put out garbage to students in the public school system. ———ColdWater
Why do you suppose they singled out evolution for stickers?
Because it’s the one theory hijacked by godless liberals.
I dare say the ONLY people unable to comprehend that are...surprise surprise.... godless liberals!
Or maybe confused evos... :)
It might be an “emergent” Christian school - you know, Christian in Name Only, 5th Column Christians.
Every path leads to God, most of the tenets of Christianity may or may not be true, and definitely not essential, etc.
They’d get a worldly education with a Christian name on the door.
So you dont have a problem with tax paying parents deciding what their kids are taught?-—AW!M
That is a stupid question but then I think you were not really asking a question but trying to make an inference so that other readers would think I had made such a position.
OH make NO mistake....readers don’t THINK you made such a position......!!!! And they didn’t need such a question to figure it out!
I have to congratulate you. You are a master of deceit, twisting other’s posts and bearing false witness. OTOH, you may just be a troubled soul that can’t keep their facts straight.
Egad! Even when you post exactly what I say, you claim that that is not my position! I think you are losing it! Your thought process does not extend more than a few characters of type at a time.
There are subsets of the flagellum in living bacteria that do useful things.
And what was it that made them come together to something even MORE useful?
Refresh my memory. What was so frightening about the message on those stickers that the evos are still haunted by it to this very day? Is the message short enough to put on my tagline?
An old trick. You post an inference to try to get others to have a false view of another. Typical liberal Obama trick.
The next time a godless liberal tries to lecture you about science belongs only to scientists, hit ‘em between the eyes with this...scientists that dissent!
It’s kind of like feminazis insisting Sarah Palin isn’t one of them!
You still have to have to define the "when".
Post a link.
Buy the books and study them. A little education won't hurt you : )
Annual aberration(earth's orbit around the sun) is 20.49552 arcseconds, or 0.0056932 degrees. Diurnal aberration(earth's rotation around its poles) is 0.32 arcseconds, or 8.88888889 × 10-5 degrees.
So I basically guessed correctly where you got your 21 arc seconds from : )
Lets say you had a device that had two arrows, one pointing in the direction of the incoming light of the sun, and the other pointing at the gravitation pull of the sun. (It doesn't matter how you spin this device, the arrows ALWAYS point DIRECTLY at their respective targets.)
Now lets say its mounted on the north poll. This devices base rotates at the same speed and on the same axis the earth rotates on.
Your asserting that the optical arrow will point 2.1 degrees behind the gravitation arrow. Correct?
No. They would both point towards the actual position of the Sun. Or close enough for Government work anyway : )
Now, lets say you mount this device's base so that it can rotate freely around the earth's axis of ration.
If you were to rotate the base in the opposite direction of the earths rotation at 360° per 24 hours, so that the same side of the base always pointed at the sun, would the optical arrow still lag the gravitation arrow by 2.1°?
That's the same question. The answer is still no. You are basically taking the rotation of the Earth out of the equation, just like an observatory. Granted there are some other factors but they are unimportant for our discussion.
Actually, we are talking about the direction of incoming light from the sun versus the direction of its gravitational pull. You are incorrect.
No what you are missing is that light takes time to reach its destination, the field effects of gravity are instantaneous. The is where the whole discussion started, with field effects : ) You need to get up to speed.
We're not talking about 2 peole on oposite side of the earth.
We are talking about the direction of incoming light versus the direction of gravity.
We are talking about the apparent vs actual position of a person on the equator of the earth with a Sun that appears to rise in the East and set in the West : ) If you change the point of reference the observation changes.
I know what 2.1 degrees looks like. How does that tell you where the gravitational pull is?
All that proves is that the earth turns 2.1 degrees in 8.5 minutes.
First you have to determine the speed of light and the distance of the Sun to the Earth, but if you accept that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth and that the light is traveling in a straight line the geometry is indisputable. Are you disputing that the light takes apx 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth?
It does NOT prove that the angle of incoming light is lagged 2.1 degrees behind the angle of gravitation pull of the sun.
Technically you are correct. It says nothing at all about gravity. For that we will have to get into Field Equations : )
Based on your questions, may I assume that you have conceded the point that for an observer on the Earth (Equator or areas where the rises in the East and falls in the West) That there can be a considerable difference of up to 2.1 degrees between the Suns actual position and apparent position?
Ok so explain your position about church taxes then!
Ummmm “rants of distortion” are your expertise.
Who gets to decide these things? Is science concensus?
How can you be so critical of the science community when you have so little understanding of its processes.
Much like your rants about religion you just don’t know when to quit!
Back to the beginning. I brought up the issue of taxes as a point to another post that said churches pay their fair share. I made no recommendation nor stated any preference except to note that large churches that operate more as a business than as a place of worship should be treated as businesses and taxed. Even you have posted that you dislike these type of churches that pay their pastor regal salaries and provide them with limosines.