← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 18097 | Posts: 74 | Started: 2005-05-04
2005-05-04 19:54 | User Profile
Got think link from "Creation-Evolution Headlines":
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200505.htm[/url]
[COLOR=Blue][I] Seems like Darwinism canââ¬â¢t get anything right about the human psyche. Sharon Begley, writing in the Wall Street Journal, discussed David J. Bullerââ¬â¢s new book, Adapting Minds (MIT Press, 2005), and found it ââ¬Å[I]the most persuasive critique of evo psych I have encountered[/I].ââ¬Â [B]Buller details why evolutionary psychology, despite its bravado, fails to explain rape, child abuse, and even normal sexual attraction[/B]. Begley was so convinced, she said, [B]ââ¬Å[I]After ââ¬ËAdapting Minds,ââ¬â¢ it is impossible to ever again think that human behavior is the Stone Age artifact that evolutionary psychology claims[/I].ââ¬Â[/B]
The Darwinian explanatory edifice is being dismantled before the eyes of the watching world, one crumbling mud brick at a time. [/I][/COLOR]
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB111472626574220079-IhjgYNglaB4nJ2obX2Ib66Fm4,00.html[/url] [FONT=Arial]
SCIENCE JOURNAL By SHARON BEGLEY [B] [SIZE=4]Evolutionary Psych May Not Help Explain Our Behavior After All[/SIZE]
April 29, 2005; Page B1[/B]
Like almost everyone else, David J. Buller says he was "completely captivated" by evolutionary psychology, and no wonder. This field claims to explain human behaviors that seem so widespread we must be wired for them: women preferring high-status men, and men falling for nubile babes; stepfathers abusing stepchildren. Even the more troubling claims, such as one saying rape gave our male ancestors a reproductive edge, have caught on, as laypeople and scientists alike say, yeah, that makes sense.
In a nutshell, evo psych argues that Pleistocene humans who engaged in certain behaviors left more descendants than did contemporaries who did not engage in those behaviors. As a result, we, their descendants, are wired for the behaviors.
But as Prof. Buller, a professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University, dug deeper, he concluded that the claims of evo psych are "wrong in almost every detail" because the data underlying them are deeply flawed. His book "Adapting Minds," from MIT Press, is the most persuasive critique of evo psych I have encountered.
Take the stepfather claim. The evolutionary reasoning is this: A Stone Age man who focused his care and support on his biological children, rather than kids his mate had from an earlier liaison, would do better by evolution's scorecard (how many descendants he left) than a man who cared for his stepchildren. With this mindset, a stepfather is far more likely to abuse his stepchildren. One textbook asserts that kids living with a parent and a stepparent are some 40 times as likely to be abused as those living with biological parents.
But that's not what the data say, Prof. Buller finds. First, reports that a child living in a family with a stepfather was abused rarely say who the abuser was. Some children are abused by their biological mother, so blaming all stepchild abuse on the stepfather distorts reality. Also, a child's bruises or broken bones are more likely to be called abuse when a stepfather is in the home, and more likely to be called accidental when a biological father is, so data showing a higher incidence of abuse in homes with a stepfather are again biased. "There is no substantial difference between the rates of severe violence committed by genetic parents and by stepparents," Prof. Buller concludes.
On a lighter note, evolutionary psychology claims that men prefer fertile, nubile young women because men wired for this preference came out ahead in the contest for survival of the fittest. The key study here asked 10,047 people in 33 countries what age mate they would prefer. The men's answer: a 25-year-old.
But the men were, on average, in their late 20s. One of the most robust findings about human behavior is that people prefer a mate who matches them in education, class and religious background, ethnicity -- and age. The rule that "likes attract" is enough to explain why young men prefer young women. Besides, if you scrutinize the data, you find that 50-ish men prefer 40-something women, not 25-year-olds, undermining a core claim of evo psych.
The argument that Stone Age women preferred good providers, and that today's women are therefore wired to see a big bankroll as the ultimate aphrodisiac, is also shaky. Among some hunter-gatherers today, young mothers receive more food from their mothers than from their husbands. That makes even the theoretical basis for the claim -- that women who sought good providers had an evolutionary edge -- problematic.
The empirical basis is no better. On average, 25-year-old women say they prefer 28-year-old men, even though 50-year-old men have much more of the high status and resources that evo psych says they are wired to lust after. Again, likes attract more than "good providers" do.
In defense of the "good provider" theory, evolutionary psychologists cite studies of female college students asked to choose their ideal mate. Shown photos of young men -- one in the uniform of a fast-food worker, one looking like a middle manager, the third like a CEO -- they indeed choose one of the latter two. But just as people prefer to marry someone near them in age, they prefer to marry someone like them socioeconomically. The fact that female college students, usually middle- or upper-class, prefer medium- or high-status men could simply reflect their preference for a man who looks as though he comes from the same socioeconomic background, Prof. Buller points out. Also, earning capacity is a sign of other traits, such as education level and socioeconomic background. So although it seems that the women are being asked how important their mate's income is, they are likely using income as a sign of the other things they care about.
Evolutionary psychology has a more fundamental problem than the shakiness of its data and the fact that the data can be interpreted in more than one way. Why, if child abuse by stepfathers is such a great evolutionary strategy, do many more stepdads love and care for their stepchildren than abuse them? And why, if rape is "such an advantageous reproductive strategy, [is it that] there are so many more men who do not rape than who do," asks primatologist Frans de Waal of Emory University, Atlanta.
After "Adapting Minds," it is impossible to ever again think that human behavior is the Stone Age artifact that evolutionary psychology claims.[/FONT]
2005-05-04 20:10 | User Profile
A Phora thread with a same theme (this stuff coming from [I]New Republic[/I]:
[SIZE=5]The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology: Of Vice and Men[/SIZE]
[url]http://www.phora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9691[/url]
[url]http://www.tnr.com/040300/coyne040300.html[/url]
Petr
2005-05-04 20:48 | User Profile
Evolution, among other things, is a monetary scam for losers to obtain 'educational' grants.
2005-05-04 20:57 | User Profile
Steve Sailer already debunked this crap - [URL=http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-sharon-begley-as-dim-as-she-sounds.html]Sailer on Begley[/URL]
Is Sharon Begley as Dim As She Sounds?
Or does feminist ideology just get in the way? From La Begley's "Science Journal" column "Evolutionary Psych May Not Help Explain Our Behavior After All" in the April 29 Wall Street Journal (online only for subscribers)
[INDENT]But as Prof. Buller, a professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University, dug deeper, he concluded that the claims of evo psych are "wrong in almost every detail" because the data underlying them are deeply flawed. His book "Adapting Minds," from MIT Press, is the most persuasive critique of evo psych I have encountered...
On a lighter note, evolutionary psychology claims that men prefer fertile, nubile young women because men wired for this preference came out ahead in the contest for survival of the fittest. The key study here asked 10,047 people in 33 countries what age mate they would prefer. The men's answer: a 25-year-old.
But the men were, on average, in their late 20s. One of the most robust findings about human behavior is that people prefer a mate who matches them in education, class and religious background, ethnicity -- and age. The rule that "likes attract" is enough to explain why young men prefer young women. Besides, if you scrutinize the data, you find that 50-ish men prefer 40-something women, not 25-year-olds, undermining a core claim of evo psych. [/INDENT] So that's why 45 year old strippers make so much more money than 25 year old strippers!
No, Sharon, if you scrutinize the data, or just read People magazine, you'll find that rich older men are much more likely to marry much younger women than rich older women are likely to marry much younger men.
[INDENT]The argument that Stone Age women preferred good providers, and that today's women are therefore wired to see a big bankroll as the ultimate aphrodisiac, is also shaky. Among some hunter-gatherers today, young mothers receive more food from their mothers than from their husbands. That makes even the theoretical basis for the claim -- that women who sought good providers had an evolutionary edge -- problematic.[/INDENT]
No, but the more food they receive from their husbands, the more ahead of the game they are. Anyway, grandmother-provisioning only can take the place of husband-provisioning where women can gather food year round (e.g., in the wet tropics), but not in cold climates where plant food disappears under the snow every winter or in an extremely seasonal desert like the Kalahari. In more difficult climates, men must hunt part of the year or everybody starves.
The big problem with evolutionary psychology is something that has never occurred to the Sharon Begleys: it is terrified of admitting the existence of human biodiversity. [INDENT] The empirical basis is no better. On average, 25-year-old women say they prefer 28-year-old men, even though 50-year-old men have much more of the high status and resources that evo psych says they are wired to lust after. Again, likes attract more than "good providers" do.[/INDENT]
They are also wired to lust after muscles that can protect them and their children from other men and catch game for them. Anyway, raise status and resources of the 50-year-old man high enough and see how he does with young women compared to a 50 year old woman with equal status and resources.
Begley's fundamental problems with thinking are starkest in her conclusion: [INDENT] Evolutionary psychology has a more fundamental problem than the shakiness of its data and the fact that the data can be interpreted in more than one way. Why, if child abuse by stepfathers is such a great evolutionary strategy, do many more stepdads love and care for their stepchildren than abuse them? And why, if rape is "such an advantageous reproductive strategy, [is it that] there are so many more men who do not rape than who do," asks primatologist Frans de Waal of Emory University, Atlanta.[/INDENT]
No, it's saying that life is very complicated, but that evolutionary psychologists have identified one set of influences that account for some limited but positive fraction of all behavior.
This kind of thinking is like saying that because the majority of males under 30 don't commit rape, that it isn't true to say that being male and under 30 makes one more likely to commit rape than being female or over 30. Or that because the majority of big league hitters aren't left-handers that being left handed couldn't give you an advantage at hitting a baseball (which it does).
I see the same kind of Begleyesque thinking all the time in people announcing that race can't possibly have any influence on human behavior because, according to Richard Lewontin, 85% of the human genetic variety is within racial groups and 15% between them.
No, that's like saying that human population genetics is like a casino where the roulette croupiers are either black or Native American, and 85% of the spins of the roulette wheel are random, but the other 15% of the time the ball winds up in the black when there is a black croupier and in the red when there is an Indian croupier. Kind of useful info, no?
2005-05-04 21:17 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=4][B]Darwinian Fairytales[/B][/SIZE]
[B]by D. C. Stove[/B]
[url]http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859723063/702-5776012-8224032[/url]
[I]"Stove attacks the theory of evolution at its weakest point, its logical flabbiness. In the spare and savagely witty prose that made his "Popper and After" and "The Plato Cult" so readable, Stove exposes how time and again evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it. [B]Darwin's theory, he shows, postulated a relentless struggle for life in all species, and then, to explain why humans were not observed struggling, had to postulate an unobserved Cave Man age when they did struggle. Dawkins' Selfish Gene is falsified in its few predictions, such as that an animal will sacrifice itself for three siblings,[/B] but has an endless supply of logical patches to explain away its errors. [B]It will be impossible to ignore Stove's arguments that the evolutionists' view of human life, in particular, is as much an offence to logic as it is to common decency.[/B]"[/I][/COLOR]
Petr
2005-05-04 21:24 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Steve Sailer already debunked this crap"[/I][/B]
He is not infallible - in fact, he may be just a gifted amateur in science, offering his opinions on various issues.
Petr
2005-05-04 21:27 | User Profile
Petr, It's funny that you brought up the philosopher Stove. Sailer tore Stove a new A-hole here-- [URL=http://www.isteve.com/Philosophy.htm]The Unexpected Uselessness of Philosophy[/URL]
2005-05-04 21:35 | User Profile
I didn't see Sailer tearing Stove a new anything. The whole (really short) article seemed like a content-free anecdotal bluster that dealt with hardly any details in Stove's work.
Sailer apparently just got pissed because Stove attacked some hallowed Darwinian dogmas. If there's any blind spot in Sailer's thinking, criticism of evolutionism is it.
Check out this article by Stove (who was not a Christian believer, btw).
[COLOR=Blue][B][SIZE=4]"So You Think You Are a Darwinian?"[/SIZE]
David Stove[/B]
"Most educated people nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as Darwinians. If they do, however, it can only be from ignorance: from not knowing enough about what Darwinism says. [B]For Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person; or at least by an educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism[/B]."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-05-04 21:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But as Prof. Buller, a professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University, dug deeper, he concluded that the claims of evo psych are "wrong in almost every detail"[/QUOTE] I have a vision of Buller's ancestor at Ellis Island shortening his name from "Bullshitter".
2005-05-05 00:37 | User Profile
For Evolution being alleged to be the most important theory in all of natural science, the Evolutionists sure are striking-out showing that the Theory of Evolution is useful. It's one thing to make up imaginative stories to explain observations within the context of Evolution, it's a whole other thing to make practical predictions.
2005-05-05 03:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]I have a vision of Buller's ancestor at Ellis Island shortening his name from "Bullshitter".[/QUOTE]
Bullofsky?
Note that Buller is a professor of PHILOSOPHY. Also, note that he is only attempting to debunk evolutionary psychology, not Darwinism.
In whose interests would it be to 'debunk' evolutionary psychologists?
2005-05-05 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It's one thing to make up imaginative stories to explain observations within the context of Evolution, it's a whole other things to make practical predictions.[/QUOTE] I don't follow you. Making practical predictions is quite easy.
2005-05-05 18:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]I don't follow you. Making practical predictions is quite easy.[/QUOTE]
I've been through this debate a couple of times at OD. So far, no examples of Evolution's good predictions that are not ad hoc. If it's quite easy, I expect a quite good example of Evolution's predictive power. The subject of this thread says that in regard to Psychology, Evolution predicted thigns wrong in almost every detail.
Consider [URL=http://www.answers.com/topic/fred-hoyle]Fred Hoyle[/URL], who rediculed the Big Bang (coined the phrase), mocked abiogenesis (tornado through junkyard making a 747), and dismissed Archaeopteryx as a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds because he knew there is no such transitional species (he thought it was a fraud, but Archaeopteryx turned out to be just a bird). If alive today, Hoyle would probably be a member of the intelligent Design Movement, but not a Creationist.
Using the Anthropic Principle that the universe is fine tuned to life, Hoyle famously proved his understanding of the way nature works by predicting the energy levels of a carbon nucleus. Years later, observations showed that he nailed it.
That is an example of a concrete prediction.
2005-05-06 01:20 | User Profile
On evolution's predictive power:
The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.
* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.
Source: [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html[/url] (Emphasis added)
On practical applications of evolutionary theory:
Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.
* Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
* Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
* Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
* Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
* Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.
* Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
* Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
* Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
* Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
* Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).
* enzymes (Arnold 2001)
* pigments (Arnold 2001)
* antibiotics
* flavors
* biopolymers
* bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).
Source: [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html[/url]
2005-05-06 01:26 | User Profile
The discovery of fossils like those in this picture tends to be difficult to explain without evolution:
[img]http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution1_files/hominids_horiz.jpg[/img]
Did God create several different kinds of men in some kind of sequential order? If so, why doesn't the Bible say so?
Face the truth. Men gradually evolved from apes.
2005-05-06 02:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]
Face the truth. Men gradually evolved from apes.[/QUOTE]
Then there is the little discovery called DNA, of which man shares some 98% with the chimpanzee. I suppose that is some sort of evolutionary fallacy as well.
2005-05-06 05:23 | User Profile
[I][B] - "Then there is the little discovery called DNA, of which man shares some 98% with the chimpanzee. "[/B][/I]
This is a good example on how layman evolutionists can uncritically circulate falsities.
[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=4]Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.[/SIZE]
[I]A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluatedââ¬âby evolutionists themselves.[/I]
"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp[/url]
Petr
2005-05-06 05:25 | User Profile
And where would you be without "talk.origins," o mighty scientist Angler?
Petr
2005-05-06 06:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included."
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]
How does revising the figure from 98% to 95% significantly affect the argument?
2005-05-06 06:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]And where would you be without "talk.origins," o mighty scientist Angler?
Petr[/QUOTE]I would have to take the time to dig up examples and write explanations from scratch. Frankly, I don't have the patience for that.
Anyway, the more important question is: Can you refute the examples given?
2005-05-06 06:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]How does revising the figure from 98% to 95% significantly affect the argument?[/QUOTE]It doesn't.
There were many intermediate evolutionary steps between chimps and humans, but those organisms are all extinct. Still, many fossils of intermediate organisms have been found and studied (that's what that picture of hominid skulls I posted earlier shows). Chimps are the closest living ancestors to humans, but we did not evolve from them.
As I pointed out on another thread, the need for fundamentalists to deny the plain evidence for evolution gives the rest of Christianity a bad name. They might as well insist that the sky is really a solid firmament, too. It would make just as much sense.
:wallbash:
2005-05-07 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]And where would you be without "talk.origins," o mighty scientist Angler? [/QUOTE] Angler has become OD's resident darwinist thug. Whenever anyone mentions God or creation, Angler's on the scene, trying to intimidate. I prefer to just laugh at him.
2005-05-07 06:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Angler has become OD's resident darwinist thug. Whenever anyone mentions God or creation, Angler's on the scene, trying to intimidate. I prefer to just laugh at him.[/QUOTE] From one of my posts on [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112569&postcount=19]another thread[/url] that you participated in:
[quote=Angler]I do NOT claim to know that the first unicellular life forms were created spontaneously (although I do suspect that's what happened). I do not rule out the work of some God, higher power, or even alien beings in that regard.
So now you've resorted to misrepresenting my position. How nice. It comes as no real surprise, since you can't answer the arguments I've made or the evidence I've presented in any substantial manner.
Feel free to laugh at the truth all you want, by the way. That's been done by your type for centuries. By all means, remain blissfully ignorant. It doesn't harm me a bit.
2005-05-07 13:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Feel free to laugh at the truth all you want, by the way. [/QUOTE] I respect and honor the truth, Angler. It's your darwinian lies which I do not respect.
And someday, when you face God, and are sentenced to Hell, don't claim you weren't warned.
BTW, your claim that I'm misrepresenting your position shows the inferior quality of your "logic". Okay, you say you believe that God had nothing to do with the creation of life, but maybe there is the off-chance that some deity or space alien was involved. Therefore, I am to conclude that you are not anti-God. Brother. You hate God through and through. You reject His Son Jesus Christ. You scoff at the Bible. Yep, Angler, you're going straight to Hell.
2005-05-07 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "Then there is the little discovery called DNA, of which man shares some 98% with the chimpanzee. "[/B][/I]
This is a good example on how layman evolutionists can uncritically circulate falsities.
[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=4]Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.[/SIZE]
[I]A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves.[/I]
"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]
100% for at least one Public Figure:
[img]http://www.whywehatebush.com/humor/bush-chimp.jpg[/img]
2005-05-07 19:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]I respect and honor the truth, Angler. It's your darwinian lies which I do not respect. The facts and evidence don't lie. They stare you in the face, yet you reject them for an ancient story someone wrote. I suppose you believe the sky is a solid dome, too? LOL
And someday, when you face God, and are sentenced to Hell, don't claim you weren't warned. Someday, when you face God and are sentenced to Hell for not believing in the Koran, don't claim you weren't warned.
BTW, your claim that I'm misrepresenting your position shows the inferior quality of your "logic". Okay, you say you believe that God had nothing to do with the creation of life, but maybe there is the off-chance that some deity or space alien was involved. Therefore, I am to conclude that you are not anti-God. Brother. Nice try, but what really happened is that you said I tried to intimidate anyone who mentioned God, even though I said I don't rule out God's existence myself. (And I've said on many other threads that I don't rule out God's existence -- I just rule out Biblical fundamentalist BS.) Anyone with a brain can see that you lied and were caught in it.
You hate God through and through. You reject His Son Jesus Christ. I've never met either and don't even know that they exist, so how can I reject them? No, what I reject is your fundamentalist horsesh!t. Even most Christians reject it.
You scoff at the Bible. Much of it is mythology. That is simply a fact. Again, even most Christians know better than to take tales like Genesis literally, although they think it contains inspired moral lessons. I can respect that to an extent, but I can't respect the insane notion that the Bible is all literally true.
Take the story of Noah's Ark, for example. Even assuming that two of every living thing could fit on an ark of that size -- a ludicrous notion in and of itself -- what was God's point in wiping out all the rest of creation? Supposedly because man's evil had become intolerable and God wanted a fresh start. Well, did this supposed plan of God work? Was evil wiped out? THINK about it.
Yep, Angler, you're going straight to Hell.[/QUOTE]:yawn: If Heaven is going to be populated by self-righteous, ignorant, wild-eyed fanatics like you, then Hell is where I'd rather be.
2005-05-07 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Chimps are the closest living ancestors to humans, but we did not evolve from them. [/QUOTE] There aren't ancestors, but descendants of a common ancestor.
There is believed to be a huge qualitative gap between humans and apes, fueling this "humans have God-given consiousness" belief. However, it does seem that some humans, like Australian aborigenes or the negroes, would never been able to evolve into anything more than stone age by themselves. The iq spectrum may be more continuous than most people believe.
As to hell, my LF signature poses an interesting question from their resident zhid liar Magician.
2005-05-07 20:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian][quote=Angler]Chimps are the closest living ancestors to humans, but we did not evolve from them.
There aren't ancestors, but descendants of a common ancestor. You're right -- I should have said "relatives" instead of "ancestors." But the point is that no one claims that chimps turned into humans. A lot of people think that's what evolutionary science claims.
There is believed to be a huge qualitative gap between humans and apes, fueling this "humans have God-given consiousness" belief. Some of the more enlightened Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first hominids to whom God gave souls and self-awareness. Although I see no evidence that souls exist and lots of evidence that they do not, the idea that the creation of the first man was actually the creation of his soul and its insertion into an early hominid is a lot more reasonable than fundamentalist silliness.
2005-05-07 21:15 | User Profile
[I][B] - "Take the story of Noah's Ark, for example. Even assuming that two of every living thing could fit on an ark of that size -- a ludicrous notion in and of itself -- what was God's point in wiping out all the rest of creation? Supposedly because man's evil had become intolerable and God wanted a fresh start. Well, did this supposed plan of God work? Was evil wiped out? THINK about it."[/B][/I]
Well, here's one original explanation for that one:
[url]http://www.eidolon.ndirect.co.uk/unmajestic/065.html[/url]
[COLOR=Blue] [B]The sixth chapter of Genesis details Satan's attempt to physically corrupt all of humankind. Certain fallen angels known in the Hebrew tongue as the [I]ben Elohim[/I] (Genesis 6:2) were able to reproduce with humankind. Satan sought to merge the bloodline of the [I]ben Elohim[/I] with the bloodline of Adam, because of God's promise to send mankind's Redeemer through Adam's of fspring.[/B]
By mating his fallen angels with women, Satan sought to extend his influence from the spirit realm into the physical realm, and thereby forever taint the human race. [B]Had Satan been successful, the virgin birth of Jesus would have never occurred--for it would have been antithetical to the nature of an All-Pure, All-Good, Almighty God to manifest Himself in a polluted race of half-humans/half-demons.[/B] In fact, understanding this little known Bible truth is the key to understanding the story of Noah and the Flood. Satan, always one to pervert scripture (Matthew 4:6), has a ttempted to alter the true meaning of the Flood story.
[B]Satan would like man to believe that the story of the Deluge, wherein all were destroyed except Noah and his family, proves that we serve an arbitrary and cruel God [/B]=2E Just such a Satanic doctrine was recently heavily promoted during a 10 hour television special hosted by apostate minister Bill Moyers on PBS (the government funded television network).
[B]However, just the opposite is true. For God so loved mankind and so wanted to bring about our redemption through His only begotten son Jesus, that He graciously and lovingly decided to save the human race, by ridding the planet of all the human/demon hybrids and saving the last pure human on Earth, Noah ("who was perfect in all his generations"--Genesis 6:9). [/B]
God could have let man totally destroy himself, for surely one of Noah's descendants would have eventually mingled with the hybrids. And then it would have been impossible for God to manifest Himself in the demon contaminated flesh of humanity.[B] So God destroyed all the hybrids in the Flood, therefore allowing Noah and his family to repopulate the Earth with an uncorrupted human race. [/B]Praise God Almighty! God did not destroy the human race in the Flood, He saved the human race![/COLOR]
Petr
2005-05-07 21:20 | User Profile
Desert people mad ramblings.
2005-05-07 21:27 | User Profile
[I][B] - "Desert people mad ramblings."[/B] [/I] A boring, meaningless soundbite.
Petr
2005-05-07 22:01 | User Profile
I'm afraid MR is right, Petr. The explanation you just posted is a l-o-n-g stretch that isn't even supported by the Bible. Besides, why couldn't God have simply prevented these supposed demons from mating with men in the first place? That explanation makes it look like God screwed up, then had to erase His mistake.
Sorry, but it's ancient mythology.
2005-05-07 23:13 | User Profile
[B][I] - "The explanation you just posted is a l-o-n-g stretch that isn't even supported by the Bible."[/I][/B]
Prove it, Mr Bible Expert.
Petr
2005-05-08 06:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "The explanation you just posted is a l-o-n-g stretch that isn't even supported by the Bible."[/I][/B]
Prove it, Mr Bible Expert.
Petr[/QUOTE]Actually, the burden of proof that it is supported by the Bible is on you, since you are making (or endorsing) the positive claim. Otherwise, the default position would be that everything is supported by the Bible until proven otherwise. That's obviously untenable.
Think about it: If I claimed that the Bible supported the existence of parallel universes and you denied it, would it be appropriate for me to demand proof from you that the Bible didn't support my claim? Of course not. The burden of proof would be on me. Similarly, if were to claim that gravity elves exist and are responsible for holding us to the earth, the burden is not on you to prove me wrong; I am required to prove that those elves exist. Otherwise, we would be required to believe each claim about what causes gravity until disproven, and that would lead to contradictions, since of course the explanations can't all be true. This is just basic critical thinking.
So, if you have something in the Bible to support your claim about demons having sex with human beings and creating hybrid offspring, thus leading to the great flood, please post it. If the evidence is reasonably strong, then I will concede the point. I still won't believe that it ever actually happened, of course, since I'm certain that demons are mythological creatures that exist only as figments of the imagination.
BTW, I suggest that you start a new thread in the Christianity forum instead of posting it on this thread, as we've gotten off topic and are talking about things that have nothing to do with science.
2005-05-08 09:40 | User Profile
Anyone who disregards Evolutionary Psychology is doing themselves a gross disservice if they want to understand the motives and dynamics that underpin the interaction of different groups in a multiracial society. God or no God.
2005-05-08 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Angler: The facts and evidence don't lie. They stare you in the face, yet you reject them for an ancient story someone wrote. I suppose you believe the sky is a solid dome, too? LOL [/QUOTE] The facts and evidence don't support evolution, devil boy. Until you can prove that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and there really are perpetual motion machines, I won't take your pagan philosophy seriously.
And your silly quotes about the koran, are just digging an even deeper hole for you, oh devil worshipper.
2005-05-08 14:17 | User Profile
Brother Robert, I respect your firm attitude, but control your tongue a little bit, will you? (James 3)
I don't think Angler is any "devil worshipper" - at least not consciously!
Petr
2005-05-08 14:18 | User Profile
Robert,
I'm curious, where do you get this from?
[B]The darwinist declares, "Water runs up hill. People grow younger. And there really are perpetual motion machines. And if you dare disagree with me, I'll brand you as 'ignorant'!"[/B]
2005-05-08 21:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]The facts and evidence don't support evolution, devil boy. Until you can prove that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and there really are perpetual motion machines, I won't take your pagan philosophy seriously. Evolutionary science doesn't claim any such things, and neither do I. So kindly stop lying. I doubt Jesus would approve.
On the other hand, if you honestly think evolutionary science is somehow tantamount to a belief that water runs uphill, then, to put it as politely as possible, you are utterly clueless. What, you think you understand science better than the people who devote their lives to it? Better than the people who successfully design cancer drugs, split atoms, or put satellites into orbit? God, what obscene arrogance!
And your silly quotes about the koran, are just digging an even deeper hole for you, oh devil worshipper.[/QUOTE]I don't believe in devils, let alone worship them. But even if I did, I'm sure my attitude couldn't be any more un-Christian than yours. For someone who professes to worship a God of Love, you sure spew a lot of holy venom. You're the type of foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatic who makes mainstream Christians look bad.
Of course you have no intelligent, informed counterarguments against evolution or the evidence briefly presented here, so you resort to screeching like a parrot: "Going to hell! Going to hell! Squawk! Devil worshipper! Squawk!" Okay, fine, so I'm going to hell, and I'm really upset about that. With that out of the way, do you have anything to add that's actually relevant to the debate? I doubt it.
2005-05-08 22:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Anyone who disregards Evolutionary Psychology is doing themselves a gross disservice if they want to understand the motives and dynamics that underpin the interaction of different groups in a multiracial society. God or no God.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised that this hasn't been emphasized more here among the participants on this thread--the Establishment is launching an attack on evolutionary psychology because it reveals the truth about racial differences. Keep in mind that the evolutionary psychologist Glayde Whitney wrote the forward to David Duke's My Awakening, and there's also Kevin MacDonald's trilogy on the Jews. Those who get upset when they see the word "evolution" for religious reasons are losing sight of what's really at stake here. Maybe the field should be renamed "genetic psychology" so that the proper focus can be restored to the real issues here.
2005-05-08 22:21 | User Profile
[I][B] - "Those who get upset when they see the word "evolution" for religious reasons are losing sight of what's really at stake here."[/B][/I]
People like myself are not going to give evolutionist speculations a free ride just because it might tickle our racial pride/vanity.
Petr
2005-05-08 22:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]> The darwinist declares, "Water runs up hill. People grow younger. And there really are perpetual motion machines. And if you dare disagree with me, I'll brand you as 'ignorant'!"
Robert,
I'm curious, where do you get this from?[/QUOTE]
The universe, a closed system, gaining complexity over time is comparable to water running up hill. Biological Evolution likewise defies logic and observation, as do perpetual motion machines, and such. Evolution doesn't happen. Nature doesn't work that way. That's why instead of showing us Evolution, Evolutionists spend so much time digging through mountains of fossils looking for anything that might, even most superficially, look like a transitional fossil form - ignoring the millions of fossils that refute them.
2005-05-09 00:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The universe, a closed system, gaining complexity over time is comparable to water running up hill. This is a strawman, since no one claims that the entropy of the universe as a whole is increasing. It's quite true that the entire universe does not gain complexity over time (at least as far as we can tell). But parts of the universe can increase in entropy while other parts correspondingly decrease.
What's essentially happening is that the entropy of the sun is decreasing as it undergoes its nuclear reactions that cause energy to be radiated toward the earth. Thus, the sun will eventually burn out. But the entropy of many systems on earth increases. The earth is not a closed system. Not even close.
Biological Evolution likewise defies logic and observation, as do perpetual motion machines, and such. Evolution doesn't happen. Nature doesn't work that way. I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. It's just plain wrong.
Please, please, please, first learn some thermodynamics and gain some understanding of what entropy really means before having the audacity to tell the world scientific community that it's wrong. (FYI: Entropy is defined as Boltzmann's constant times the natural logarithm of the number of configurational states accessible to a system: S = k log M, where M = # of states.)
That's why instead of showing us Evolution, Evolutionists spend so much time digging through mountains of fossils looking for anything that might, even most superficially, look like a transitional fossil form - ignoring the millions of fossils that refute them.[/QUOTE]"Superficially"? Good Lord, those hominid fossils in the pic already posted show a clear pattern of development. Those fossils and countless others, plus the fact that humans and chimps share the vast majority of their DNA, plus the fact that evolution has been observed in real life...geez, you creationists will stop at nothing to convince yourselves that the truth isn't real. And can you name one fossil that refutes evolution? Just one, please.
Evolutionary science is not much different from forensic science or archaeology. If you reject evolutionary science because it makes judgments about things that have happened and cannot be repeated, then you must reject forensic science as worthless for catching murderers or archaeological science as worthless for determining facts about ancient civilizations. Think about the implications of your position.
The creationist bias against evolution has a very simple origin: people who want to believe the Bible is literally true deceive themselves into rejecting evolution for that reason. On the contrary, many who accept evolution as the scientific fact it is are devout Christians; hence, they have no bias against Christianity.
Here's a good article by a Christian on why it's pointless and unnecessary for fundamentalists to reject the facts about evolution. Evolution poses no threat to Christian faith. (Even if it did, of course, that would not be a rational reason to reject it. In any case, it doesn't.) I urge you to be open-minded enough to read it.
[url]http://www.berea.edu/SpecialProject/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp[/url]
2005-05-09 02:40 | User Profile
Angler, those fossils and all scientific facts and discoveries, including the development of the computers that Bible-thumpers are using to post their diatribes and the internet where they post, are just a huge conspiracy and the universe was created 6,000 years ago.
2005-05-09 13:02 | User Profile
madrussian, your posts are always so wonderfully contentless.
Petr
2005-05-09 13:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "Those who get upset when they see the word "evolution" for religious reasons are losing sight of what's really at stake here."[/B][/I]
People like myself are not going to give evolutionist speculations a free ride just because it might tickle our racial pride/vanity.
Petr[/QUOTE]
How exactly does Evolutionary Psychology tickle your racial pride? If anything, Evolutionary Psychology serves more as a cautionary tale about White weakness than an opportunity for gloating or other vanities. (For the purposes of discussion just assume that "White" or any other group is defined as a breeding population with fuzzy boundaries forming a community of mutual altruism and common cultural identity)
Even if you are not 100% convinced of the theory's authenticity (I'm not either) the precautionary principle suggests that it's worth your while paying it some attention just in case.
2005-05-10 01:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Angler: I don't believe in devils, let alone worship them. But even if I did, I'm sure my attitude couldn't be any more un-Christian than yours. For someone who professes to worship a God of Love, you sure spew a lot of holy venom. You're the type of foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatic who makes mainstream Christians look bad. [/QUOTE] You misunderstand Christianity, Angler. Christianity is not about syrupy love and being nice all the time. A Christian must tell the truth. God is love, but God is also holiness and wrath. He offers you His love, but if you reject His Son, you will burn, Angler. It would be unloving for me not to tell you the truth.
2005-05-10 01:30 | User Profile
Bardamu, I just came up with that phrase while debating with Angler.
[QUOTE] Happy Hacker: The universe, a closed system, gaining complexity over time is comparable to water running up hill. Biological Evolution likewise defies logic and observation, as do perpetual motion machines, and such. Evolution doesn't happen. Nature doesn't work that way. That's why instead of showing us Evolution, Evolutionists spend so much time digging through mountains of fossils looking for anything that might, even most superficially, look like a transitional fossil form - ignoring the millions of fossils that refute them. [/QUOTE] HH, I loved the way you explained it. I'm going to keep demanding that Angler prove that water can run up hill, people can grow younger, and that there really are perpetual motion machines. :thumbsup:
2005-05-10 03:53 | User Profile
You misunderstand Christianity, Angler. Christianity is not about syrupy love and being nice all the time. A Christian must tell the truth. God is love, but God is also holiness and wrath. He offers you His love, but if you reject His Son, you will burn, Angler. It would be unloving for me not to tell you the truth. And what makes you think you know the truth about anything? Just because you've decided that your cult is the correct one, that means you must be right?
I have not rejected God's Son, because to the very best of my knowledge, God has never directly offered me His Son. Read this very slowly so that it sinks in, Robert: ANYONE CAN WRITE A BOOK. ANYONE CAN CLAIM HE WAS INSPIRED BY GOD. THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT SO. Is that clear enough? I don't know any way to explain it in simpler terms. There is NO EVIDENCE that the Bible was divinely inspired.
If there's a God who has a problem with me, then He can tell me that Himself. I don't need to hear it from you.
[QUOTE=Robert]I'm going to keep demanding that Angler prove that water can run up hill, people can grow younger, and that there really are perpetual motion machines. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]I do not and never have claimed any such things. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You don't know the damndest thing about thermodynamics. Explain to me how evolutionary science implies that water can run up hill. I have a Master's degree in engineering physics, so feel free to use a complicated, rigorous mathematical explanation if you have one. Just don't try to BS me, as I'll know it in a heartbeat.
THINK about it. Do you really think all the scientists around the world -- all these people who know things you can never hope to understand in your lifetime -- are unaware of something you know? Are you really that arrogant?
Do you understand something that all these people don't? [url]http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~evolutio/talks.html[/url]
Do you know what the difference is between a first- and second-order phase transition? Do you know what a metastable state is? How about an Ising model? A partition function? If you can't answer those questions off the top of your head, then you telling me about thermodynamics is like you taking a trip to a foreign country where you don't speak the language and correcting the natives on their pronunciation.
Now, I have nothing against nonscientists. Science isn't everybody's cup of tea. But what I find contemptible is when people act as if they understand a subject they've never learned, then smugly talk down to people who've spent much of their lives working hard to gain that understanding. When you do that, you're basically lying, but you're lying to someone who knows the truth and could prove it to you if you had the wherewithal to even understand the proof.
In a word: Stay on your own side of the tracks.
2005-05-14 16:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE] I do not and never have claimed any such things. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You don't know the damndest thing about thermodynamics. Explain to me how evolutionary science implies that water can run up hill. I have a Master's degree in engineering physics, so feel free to use a complicated, rigorous mathematical explanation if you have one. Just don't try to BS me, as I'll know it in a heartbeat. [/QUOTE] Angler, you're a fool. Evolution is nothing but an imaginary perpetual motion machine. When you prove that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and perpetual motion machines really do exist, only then, will I take your pagan philosophy (not science as you falsely believe) seriously.
2005-05-15 03:16 | User Profile
The Wall Street Journal is now in the hands of Neo-Cons and they view Evolutionary Psychology as anti-Semitic because it seeks to explain human behavior and intelligence in genetic terms. So they are taking the Boasian/Marxist perspective.
This is the same magazine that published that old 1994 "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" article vindicating The Bell Curve. But that was a time when there were more Paleo-Conservatives in the management.
2005-05-15 05:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, you're a fool. Evolution is nothing but an imaginary perpetual motion machine. When you prove that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and perpetual motion machines really do exist, only then, will I take your pagan philosophy (not science as you falsely believe) seriously.[/QUOTE]
Robert,
Can [I]you[/I] prove Hell exists?
2005-05-15 05:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert] When you prove that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and perpetual motion machines really do exist, only then, will I take your pagan philosophy (not science as you falsely believe) seriously.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you can point to a scientific peer-reviewed articles about intelligent design or whatever it's you believe in :biggrin:
2005-05-15 06:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, you're a fool. Evolution is nothing but an imaginary perpetual motion machine. When you prove that water runs up hill, people grow younger, and perpetual motion machines really do exist, only then, will I take your pagan philosophy (not science as you falsely believe) seriously.[/QUOTE]If you don't want to accept evolution, then that's bad enough, but perhaps it's excusable. But if you don't accept evolution because you think it violates the laws of thermodynamics, then you're an idiot, pure and simple.
Let's put things in perspective again. This is a "debate" between you, a guy who doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to even the most basic science, and me, a person who gets paid good money to come up with scientific results in a lab in order to further the development of cutting-edge electronic devices. You are like a clown with his squeeze-honk horn criticizing the musical ability of a professional musician in an orchestra. And all the best scientific minds in the world agree with me. People like you are comic relief for us, providing laughs that are much-needed after long days of working on complex technical problems. What's less funny, however, is when you attempt to force your ignorance on others. That's just a shame.
When you can provide some real support for your position that evolution is like a perpetual motion machine -- which you can't, because the earth continuously receives energy from the sun...DUH!! -- then I might humor you again by trying to teach you some remedial, grade-school-level science. Until then, I will ignore you as I do all those who talk out of their posteriors.
2005-05-15 07:37 | User Profile
If Adam and Eve were the first humans, why are they always depicted with belly buttons?
[IMG]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/durer/adam-eve-1507.jpg[/IMG]
2005-05-15 14:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE] From the Devil Worshipper: the earth continuously receives energy from the sun...DUH!! [/QUOTE] That's a totally absurd argument, Angler. I've heard it before. Problem is, it totally invalidates the second law of thermodynamics. If energy from the sun allows evolution, it also causes water to run up hill, people to grow younger and perpetual motion machines to exist.
I'm afraid that you're the ignorant one, Angler.
2005-05-16 16:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]That's a totally absurd argument, Angler. I've heard it before. Problem is, it totally invalidates the second law of thermodynamics. If energy from the sun allows evolution, it also causes water to run up hill, people to grow younger and perpetual motion machines to exist.
I'm afraid that you're the ignorant one, Angler.[/QUOTE] Am I?
I'm still waiting for you to explain your "scientific reasoning." First of all, what is a perpetual motion machine (of the first and second kind)? And how does this apply to evolution?
I await your answers with interest.
2005-05-16 17:08 | User Profile
I will make a point here that I made on another site in response to the same article:
What I find most interesting about the political reaction to sociobiology/evolutionary psychology is the de facto alliance it has created between religious fanatics on the one hand (who dislike sociobiology for its Darwinian roots) and the Frankfurt School New Left on the other hand (who dislike sociobiology for its anti-feminist and anti-egalitarian implications).
I wonder if this alliance of strange bedfellows will ever be openly played out, or whether the Bible Thumper and the Granola Bar crowd will vociferously deny having anything in common here. Stranger things have happened, after all, we have Alan Dershowitz and Jerry Falwell singing the same tune on Mideast foreign policy.
2005-05-16 23:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I will make a point here that I made on another site in response to the same article:
What I find most interesting about the political reaction to sociobiology/evolutionary psychology is the de facto alliance it has created between religious fanatics on the one hand (who dislike sociobiology for its Darwinian roots) and the Frankfurt School New Left on the other hand (who dislike sociobiology for its anti-feminist and anti-egalitarian implications).
I wonder if this alliance of strange bedfellows will ever be openly played out, or whether the Bible Thumper and the Granola Bar crowd will vociferously deny having anything in common here. Stranger things have happened, after all, we have Alan Dershowitz and Jerry Falwell singing the same tune on Mideast foreign policy.[/QUOTE] Very true, AY.
Bible-thumpers cannot conceive of an existence where the Bible isn't absolute, literal truth, and for them to even consider otherwise is too upsetting for them. That's why religious fanatics always get bent out of shape when you question their beliefs -- you're intruding into their comfort zone. So, they unconsciously -- and, in some cases, consciously -- willingly reject all scientific evidence contrary to their convictions, no matter how overwhelming. (Often they are able to take refuge in a simple lack of understanding of the evidence, as we've seen on this board.)
The same is true of leftist egalitarians: they can't accept that the races aren't all equal, even though science clearly shows that there are significant genetic differences between them, including in average intelligence level. The evidence that whites are genetically smarter than blacks is not as strong as the evidence for evolution, but it's still very convincing to anyone who will look at it with an open mind. Egalitarians, of course, will always dismiss any such evidence as being the product of "hateful" or "biased" scientists -- just like anti-evolutionists like to tell themselves that all the evidence for evolution is interpreted by biased scientists with an atheistic agenda. It doesn't matter that many of those scientists are Christian or Muslim -- they must be atheists, since that's the only way to dismiss their work as biased!
In both cases, you have people who simply don't like reality the way it is and would rather have another reality -- one unsupported by any evidence, but only by mere assertion. Such people are saved from the difficult job of thinking by simply sorting statements according to whether they're "on my side" or "the other side" -- there's no critical reasoning involved whatsoever, just cheering for one's own team and booing at the other side. But facts are very stubborn things, and if the Bible is wrong, and if blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, then that's that.
2005-05-16 23:51 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "That's why religious fanatics always get bent out of shape when you question their beliefs -- you're intruding into their comfort zone."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
That's why antitheistic humanists always get bent out of shape when you question the spontaneous origins of life -- you're intruding into their comfort zone.
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "But facts are very stubborn things, and if the Bible is wrong, and if blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, then that's that."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
But facts are very stubborn things, and if the evolution scenario is functionally impossible, and if blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, then that's that.
Petr
2005-05-17 02:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]And what makes you think you know the truth about anything? Just because you've decided that your cult is the correct one, that means you must be right?[/QUOTE]Robert is just restating what Christ very explicitly said in the scriptures. Christ was adamant about the consequences of rejecting the salvation he provided. If Robert denied this he would in effect be denying one of the central teachings of Christ, which is tantamount to calling Christ a liar. You cannot call yourself a Christian and simultaneously maintain that the central figure upon which Christianity is based is a liar.
[QUOTE]Read this very slowly so that it sinks in, Robert: ANYONE CAN WRITE A BOOK. ANYONE CAN CLAIM HE WAS INSPIRED BY GOD. THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT SO. [/QUOTE]You make it sound as if someone just wrote the Bible and then went around baldly "claiming" it was inspired by God. The Bible isn't just any "book." The scriptures foretold many events which later came to pass, most notably the life of Christ.
[QUOTE]Is that clear enough? I don't know any way to explain it in simpler terms. There is NO EVIDENCE that the Bible was divinely inspired.[/QUOTE]What constitutes "evidence" to you?
2005-05-17 02:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr] That's why antitheistic humanists always get bent out of shape when you question the spontaneous origins of life -- you're intruding into their comfort zone.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't care if evolution turned out to be false. I just think that it is true.
It isn't the core of my belief system.
2005-05-17 06:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Stranger things have happened, after all, we have Alan Dershowitz and Jerry Falwell singing the same tune on Mideast foreign policy.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and you and the Susan Sarandon, Hollywood anti-war left on the other side.
That kind of associative guilt really says nothing at all. Of course the lesson to be learned is that "Bible thumping religious fanatics" and calm, reasonable and oh so rationally minded evolutionists are perhaps not as monolithic as we sometimes find it ever so convenient to make them out to be.
2005-05-17 09:57 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "That kind of associative guilt really says nothing at all."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
That's correct - politics can make strange bedfellows, like both Buchanan-supporters and Greenies could oppose unrestricted free trade in Seattle.
How many neo-Nazis you see around denouncing Hitler for his co-operation with the Japanese and his willingness to turn Australia and New Zealand over to them?
Petr
2005-05-18 04:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Am I?
I'm still waiting for you to explain your "scientific reasoning." First of all, what is a perpetual motion machine (of the first and second kind)? And how does this apply to evolution?
I await your answers with interest.[/QUOTE] How does it apply? Ok, thou great one with the off-the-chart IQ, even though I have only normal human intelligence, and not your Olympian mind, I will try to explain.
Imagine, Angler, that you are wearing a beanie hat (yarmulka) with a propeller. You take your hand and twirl the propeller. After a few turns, the propeller stops. If the propeller could continue turning forever, without some source of energy such as the wind, it would be a true perpetual motion machine.
Ok, oh wise one, you imagine that the energy from the sun could keep evolution going. But is the energy of the sun comparable to the wind blowing the propeller on your beanie hat? Somehow the energy from the sun, causes inanimate objects to come together by magic, form life, and then evolve from microbes to reptiles to birds to airplanes and fighter jets and from monkeys to ape-like men to humans to super-humans to super-super-humans and finally to the pinnacle of evolution, the great Angler, himself (please, all fall down and worship). All this without any intelligent designing force? Give my a break. The propeller on your beanie hat, Angler, is more likely to spin forever, than all that. So, yes, evolution can be compared to a giant perpetual motion machine. While experience tells us that everything runs down over time, we're supposed to believe the evolution myth. Insufficient energy. Insufficient intelligence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has just been thrown out the window.
Angler, I just don't care that you have a masters degree in Voodoo Phsyics or that you have an off-the-chart IQ, evolution is just plain nuts.
So, Angler, again I ask, explain to me how water can run up hill, people can grow younger, and perpetual motion machines can truly exist.
2005-05-18 10:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]How does it apply? Ok, thou great one with the off-the-chart IQ, even though I have only normal human intelligence, and not your Olympian mind, I will try to explain. "Normal" intelligence? Don't flatter yourself. :)
Imagine, Angler, that you are wearing a beanie hat (yarmulka) with a propeller. You take your hand and twirl the propeller. After a few turns, the propeller stops. If the propeller could continue turning forever, without some source of energy such as the wind, it would be a true perpetual motion machine. Is the orbit of the earth around the sun a perpetual motion machine? Why does it keep going without slowing? The years aren't changing perceptibly in length. Enlighten me. Humble me, since I'm so arrogant.
Ok, oh wise one, you imagine that the energy from the sun could keep evolution going. But is the energy of the sun comparable to the wind blowing the propeller on your beanie hat? Heat energy from the sun causes the wind by creating pressure differentials in the atmosphere. The earth's rotation affects the wind, too (and is even affected by it, though very slightly). It's an example of energy being turned from one form to another. Or do you think wind is caused by God huffing and puffing?
Somehow the energy from the sun, causes inanimate objects to come together by magic, form life, and then evolve from microbes to reptiles to birds to airplanes and fighter jets and from monkeys to ape-like men to humans to super-humans to super-super-humans and finally to the pinnacle of evolution, the great Angler, himself (please, all fall down and worship). Pure garbage. No one claims that energy alone causes evolution, especially not in accordance with your cartoonish understanding of it. Nevertheless, the necessary energy is there. That's why thermodynamical laws are NOT violated.
By the way, in spite of your little sarcastic gibes, I don't claim to be smarter or more knowledgeable than everyone else. There are areas where my knowledge is weak (e.g., certain periods of history) -- and I admit it, unlike some people who make pretenses to understanding that they just don't have. I was told by a psychologist that my IQ is somewhere in the 150 range. 150 is at about the 1-in-1000 level. That's high, but there are still millions of people who are smarter than I am. Due to my line of work, I'm certain I've met some. But one thing they all have in common is that they would laugh their asses off at your pseudo-scientific rants. Creationism is comic relief to true scientists (including many religious ones who disdain fundamentalism).
Still, if you want to worship me, I won't stop you. :smartass:
All this without any intelligent designing force? Give my a break. What does "intelligent designing force" have to do with the laws of thermodynamics? Nothing whatsoever. Again: evolution does NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, since plenty of energy is pumped into the earth continuously from the sun.
If you want to base arguments against evolution on other principles, then be my guest. Just don't try to say thermodynamics has anything to do with it. It doesn't.
The propeller on your beanie hat, Angler, is more likely to spin forever, than all that. So, yes, evolution can be compared to a giant perpetual motion machine. While experience tells us that everything runs down over time, we're supposed to believe the evolution myth. Insufficient energy. Insufficient intelligence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has just been thrown out the window. Your ignorance is jaw-dropping. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
If everything runs down over time, then I suppose you don't think snowflakes can form spontaneously, either. If everything tends toward chaos, then why do snowflakes form in complex crystalline patterns before falling to the ground? I suppose God puts each one together individually, huh?
Why do crystals grow in solution? How does rock candy form? Once you understand these things, you will understand how laughable your claims about evolution violating thermodynamics really are.
When energy is applied to a system, entropy can decrease inside that system. Entropy will increase somewhere outside the system. For example, although ordered structures can form spontaneously on earth, a price is paid -- not only elsewhere on the earth, but especially within the sun. The sun is depleting its nuclear fuel. That is the primary cost of all these non-equilibrium phenomena that occur on earth: evolution, the blowing of winds, etc., etc.
Angler, I just don't care that you have a masters degree in Voodoo Phsyics or that you have an off-the-chart IQ, evolution is just plain nuts. Try "engineering physics." And you, sir, have little room to call anything "nuts," Mr. God-Sent-Me-A-Vision-That-You're-Going-To-Hell.
So, Angler, again I ask, explain to me how water can run up hill, people can grow younger, and perpetual motion machines can truly exist.[/QUOTE]Water can run uphill if it's pumped through a tube, as in a plumbing system. That's because energy is being supplied to the system. Are you starting to notice a general principle here?
I don't claim that people can grow younger, but I claim that they can grow into more complex organisms over a lifespan (much like a fertilized egg can eventually become a child).
As for perpetual motion machines, I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not the earth revolving around the sun is a perpetual motion machine. Why does it just keep going like that? Please tell me, since you've convinced me that my physics education is worthless. :rolleyes:
2005-05-18 12:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]As for perpetual motion machines, I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not the earth revolving around the sun is a perpetual motion machine.[/QUOTE]
A planet orbiting a star is an example of (nearly) perpetual motion, but it's not a machine because energy isn't changing from one form to another. :smartass:
Not that it's got anything to do with evolution...
2005-05-18 12:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]A planet orbiting a star is an example of (nearly) perpetual motion, but it's not a machine because energy isn't changing from one form to another. :smartass:
Not that it's got anything to do with evolution...[/QUOTE]Aw, man! You gave away the answer! :) Of course simple energy conservation is the reason the revolution continues.
Anyway, the simple point Robert fails to grasp is this: Saying evolution is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine is like saying a propeller on a hat is a perpetual motion machine if it keeps spinning because the wind keeps blowing on it. In both cases, a (nearly) endless supply of energy is available. Of course, the sun will eventually exhaust its fuel, but not any time soon.
Now, the fact that evolution doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics doesn't prove evolution. No one is saying that it does. But the crucial and indisputable point is that evolution does NOT violate any thermodynamical laws. If it does, then so do water pumps, snowflakes, and rock candy.
2005-05-19 00:52 | User Profile
Angler, you were so indoctrinated at the Voodoo School of Physics that you simply cannot reason.
Here's a website which deals with much of the nonsense you raised: [url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp[/url]
In regard to crystals it says:
"Example No. 3 (crystals) is often cited, but has no relevance to the problem. This is because biological growth processes involve complexity, whereas crystal growth involves regularity. If you break up a large salt crystal, you get a lot of smaller salt crystals. If you break up a molecule of a biological protein, eg. insulin, into smaller pieces, it is no longer insulin since the information it carries in its specific sequence of components is lost. A crystal of ice, for example, carries no more information than a single water molecule. The formation of a crystal involves molecules assuming a rigidly predetermined pattern, there is no growth in information or complexity, and again there is a pre-existing 'code'."
The site also points out:
"local increase in order will not happen unless we have special conditions. Order, complexity and information will never arise spontaneously without a mechanism or motor."
Ok, oh great scientist Angler, let's go back to the original example.
Angler is standing outside in the wind in his propeller beanie hat. The wind turns the propeller. How is this possible?
First, there's the 20 something guy still living at his parent's home who designed the beanie hat. There's the American tycoon who built a factory in China and secured slave laborers to make the hats and propellers. There's the Jew trader who bought boxfuls of the beanies and sold them to a chain of dollar stores. And there's your Aunt Bertha who bought one of the propeller beanie hats and gave it to you for your birthday.
The wind is interacting with a plastic propeller which was the result of design. There is evidence of an intelligently designed purpose. Ok, now with the sun and evolution; there's a bunch of formless matter (how it got there, who knows how). This matter, not being designed, must have no inherent properties and contain no information. So, then, energy from the sun (and who knows how it got there) is supposed to cause this propertyless, formless matter to develop properties and become alive, and evolve into germs, and from there to ever increasing forms until the appearance of Angler in his propeller beanie hat. At this point, evolution can go no higher.
Angler's propeller beanie hat was designed by a designer to interact with the wind in a particular way. Formless matter, though, being undesigned, cannot take on complex design simply because the sun shines on it. (Besides, without design, the sun would never even exist.)
There is no way to get around evolution violating the laws of thermodynamics. Everything is running down. Everything is wearing out. An intelligently designed system can take in energy and produce output. But, eventually, the intelligently designed system will wear out. The sun shining on formless, propertyless matter is not an effective form of energy. It cannot be used or applied. Formless matter is not an intelligently designed system capable of taking the sun's energy and producing complex life forms. Therefore, evolution remains akin to a giant, implausible perpetual motion machine.
[QUOTE] Angler: When energy is applied to a system, entropy can decrease inside that system. Entropy will increase somewhere outside the system. For example, although ordered structures can form spontaneously on earth, a price is paid -- not only elsewhere on the earth, but especially within the sun. The sun is depleting its nuclear fuel. That is the primary cost of all these non-equilibrium phenomena that occur on earth: evolution, the blowing of winds, etc., etc. [/QUOTE]And you call me ignorant. You just don't get it. Your argument that the sun's energy allows a chaotic, orderless earth to create form, order and life invalidates the 2nd law of thermodynamics from an earth-based perspective. Evolution is like a stream of water running up the side of a giant mountain. Therefore, explain to me again, how can water run up hill (and not from a human designed system, but a naturally occuring one), people grow younger and perpetual motion machines exist?
2005-05-19 05:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]First, there's the 20 something guy still living at his parent's home who designed the beanie hat. There's the American tycoon who built a factory in China and secured slave laborers to make the hats and propellers. There's the Jew trader who bought boxfuls of the beanies and sold them to a chain of dollar stores. And there's your Aunt Bertha who bought one of the propeller beanie hats and gave it to you for your birthday.[/QUOTE] I'm frankly amazed that you managed to work the Jew angle into a debate about evolution.
2005-05-19 12:47 | User Profile
I give up on you, Robert. You're hopeless. I feel like I'm trying to explain quantum theory to a preschooler. It's a waste of time; these concepts are too far over your head. So let's agree to disagree. You can continue to read tripe written by wannabe scientists on creationist websites and pretend that you understand science; I'll continue to prove that I understand science by getting results in the lab.
2005-05-20 00:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]I'm frankly amazed that you managed to work the Jew angle into a debate about evolution.[/QUOTE] Cool, eh?
2005-05-20 00:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I give up on you, Robert. You're hopeless. I feel like I'm trying to explain quantum theory to a preschooler. It's a waste of time; these concepts are too far over your head. So let's agree to disagree. You can continue to read tripe written by wannabe scientists on creationist websites and pretend that you understand science; I'll continue to prove that I understand science by getting results in the lab.[/QUOTE] Whatever. I do have a few more thoughts, though.
An intelligently designed system can take in energy and grow or produce output. An example is the human body. We take in energy through food and grow according to the info encoded in our DNA. The information already exists. New information is not created. Eventually, though, the intelligently designed system, here, the human body, decays and dies. All of this is in accord with the laws of thermodynamics.
Early earth, as described in evolutionary mythology, is not an intelligently designed system. It has no DNA. Yet, it supposedly takes in energy, creates new information, and produces complex life forms. Evolution, thus, contradicts all the laws of thermodynamics.
2005-05-20 02:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Cool, eh?[/QUOTE]
More than "cool" that's right on, after all you find those things even in the toilet.