"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[tas8831]

What's a respectful way for me to say, do you think, "As my fellow instructor, please stop behaving like a degenerate (if you'll pardon my using a Darwinian term of evolution to describe your present demeaning behavior to our profession)".

Not sure - how should I say that to you?

I mean, how is it that a triple-degreed professor cannot accept his own educational/intellectual limitations?

Your arguments against evolution are laughable, at best, and you engage in the exact same sorts of antics that high school-level internet creationists do.

Get over yourself. I do hope that you are not so rude and condescending to your supposed 'students.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can simplify:

I have not rejected the Infinite Monkey Theorem as it applies to evolution, sampled as simply getting "new" in sequence = 1*26^3 (!), since people studying the IMT used it to measure that if every atom in the universe were a typing monkey since Planck time, they still wouldn't have written Hamlet--and "simple, easy" evolutionary change like chimps or other apes to men (32 million base pairs) is immensely more complex than the letters which string together to make the Hamlet play. Oh, and my comments are conservative in numbers:

"The probability that monkeys filling the observable universe would type a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero)." Source: Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia

You know these facts of statistics and numbers, and I believe you have grappled with them, regarding evolution, yet the difference between us here is also simple--I'm certain natural selection and the other proposed/theorized mechanisms explaining how abiogenesis and evolution decreases the immense, near-infinite odds, lack much explanatory power. For example, your statement above:

"There are a bunch of bases in our DNA. Sure."

...respectfully, very respectfully, it sounds like you are hand-waving to explain away--without actually explaining, really--32 million base pair differences achieved, as I put it based on the odds--as relatively rapid (generations over 10 to 60 million years, apes to men).

Why do you keep forgetting why the infinite monkey concept is not a valid comparison to evolution. It has no selection method. Guess what happens when a selection method is added? One does not even need an infinite number of monkeys.

Creationist odds arguments fail horribly since every one that I have ever seen is based upon a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've address chirality, abiogenesis, and problems I perceive with them and with "rapid" evolution elsewhere, with Dan from Smithville. Have a look.

And all of your claims have been refuted. You need to have a look.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's a respectful way for me to say, do you think, "As my fellow instructor, please stop behaving like a degenerate (if you'll pardon my using a Darwinian term of evolution to describe your present demeaning behavior to our profession)".

Projection.

 

[tas8831]

I've address chirality, abiogenesis, and problems I perceive with them and with "rapid" evolution elsewhere, with Dan from Smithville. Have a look.

If by 'addressing', you mean asserting and reiterating without providing any explanation as to their actual relevance, then yes.

Regarding chirality (I have posted some of these on here before for you - guess you ignored it so you could keep making the same lame 'arguments'):

• Hazen, R.M. and D.S. Sholl (2003b) “Origins of biomolecular homochirality: selective molecular adsorption on crystalline surfaces.” Astrobiology 2, 598-599.
• Downs, R.T. and R.M. Hazen (2004) “Chiral indices of crystalline surfaces as a measure of enantioselective potential.” Journal of Molecular Catalysis 216, 273-285.
• Hazen, R.M. (2004) “Chiral crystal faces of common rock-forming minerals.” In G. Palyi, C. Zucchi and L Cagglioti, Eds. Progress in Biological Chirality. New York: Elsevier, Chapter 11, pp.137-151.
• Hazen, R.M. (2005) Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 339 p.
• Hazen, R.M. (2005) “Genesis: Rocks, minerals and the geochemical origin of life.” Elements 1, #3 (June, 2005), 135-137.
• Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley and G.A. Goodfriend (2001) “Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: implications for biochemical homochirality.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US), 98: 5487-5490.
• Asthagiri, A. and R.M. Hazen (2006) “An ab initio study of adsorption of alanine on the chiral calcite (2131) surface.” Molecular Simulation 33, 343-351
• Asthagiri, A, and R. M. Hazen (2008) An ab initio study of adsorption of aspartic acid on the chiral calcite (2131) surface. In preparation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can simplify:

I have not rejected the Infinite Monkey Theorem as it applies to evolution, sampled as simply getting "new" in sequence = 1*26^3 (!), since people studying the IMT used it to measure that if every atom in the universe were a typing monkey since Planck time, they still wouldn't have written Hamlet--and "simple, easy" evolutionary change like chimps or other apes to men (32 million base pairs) is immensely more complex than the letters which string together to make the Hamlet play. Oh, and my comments are conservative in numbers:

Your knowledge of statistics is remarkable.

I exist. The probability that I, the me that is me, is a non-zero number that is really, really close to zero. That my parents would reproduce me specifically is so near zero, I should practically not exist based on that. I cannot even calculate that probability, beyond the faint notion that it is low.

The probability that any specific species would evolved cannot be calculated, because we do not have the information. The probability that you will continue down this blind alley is probably close to one, given the evidence that you have been told this very thing by numerous posters over months and months and ignored it every time.

"The probability that monkeys filling the observable universe would type a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero)." Source: Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia

You really like monkeys.

You know these facts of statistics and numbers, and I believe you have grappled with them, regarding evolution, yet the difference between us here is also simple--I'm certain natural selection and the other proposed/theorized mechanisms explaining how abiogenesis and evolution decreases the immense, near-infinite odds, lack much explanatory power.

For someone so certain, you lack the ability to explain that uncertainty at all. When I hear someone with your lack of understanding tell me they reject evolution on a certainty, it usually means they have a feeling and bias for their favorite explanation and nothing more.

For example, your statement above:

"There are a bunch of bases in our DNA. Sure."

...respectfully, very respectfully, it sounds like you are hand-waving to explain away--without actually explaining, really--32 million base pair differences achieved, as I put it based on the odds--as relatively rapid (generations over 10 to 60 million years, apes to men).

Respectfully, you got it so wrong. That was the response of someone with a good deal more knowledge on the subject reading the work of another that does not, but this other continually repeats the same things over and over and in a way that shows he is overthinking and over-expressing himself to give the illusion he knows. In a word, reading your repetition grows tiresome when you have been given a lot of information that would have long ago clarified things for you if you were not bent on the biased goal of proving it all wrong and were instead following your own advice and learning this as if you were new born to it.

I would really recommend that you learn this material before you rush headlong into debunking it like a peripheral monkey rushing to get a handful of peanuts before the alpha notices. It would serve you better to first understand the material and, after that, if you still feel you must reject it, at least you will have some basis to mount your arguments.

You really come off as if you are trying to persuade us through your repetition and wordy questions and responses that you are a guy in the know without demonstrating that you know even the basics. If you are some kind of academic, you surely must have some inkling of this and be aware of what researching a subject means and requires.

You would be better off learning the material so that you can formulate pertinent and relevant questions succinctly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can simplify:

I have not rejected the Infinite Monkey Theorem as it applies to evolution, sampled as simply getting "new" in sequence = 1*26^3 (!), since people studying the IMT used it to measure that if every atom in the universe were a typing monkey since Planck time, they still wouldn't have written Hamlet--and "simple, easy" evolutionary change like chimps or other apes to men (32 million base pairs) is immensely more complex than the letters which string together to make the Hamlet play. Oh, and my comments are conservative in numbers:

"The probability that monkeys filling the observable universe would type a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero)." Source: Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia

You know these facts of statistics and numbers, and I believe you have grappled with them, regarding evolution, yet the difference between us here is also simple--I'm certain natural selection and the other proposed/theorized mechanisms explaining how abiogenesis and evolution decreases the immense, near-infinite odds, lack much explanatory power. For example, your statement above:

"There are a bunch of bases in our DNA. Sure."

...respectfully, very respectfully, it sounds like you are hand-waving to explain away--without actually explaining, really--32 million base pair differences achieved, as I put it based on the odds--as relatively rapid (generations over 10 to 60 million years, apes to men).

This repetition of dead issues and misunderstanding intent of others is what you call simplifying? You should really look up the definition of simplify.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've replied to you elsewhere regarding this concept I've offered of apes-to-men being "rapid" evolution.

Thank you.

Have you? I do not recall or missed it. It is not something I have seen evolutionary biologist refer to as rapid evolution. In fact, I have not read any biologist referring to human evolution as rapid. I do not consider it rapid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Chirality represents a challenge to random mechanisms forming the building blocks of life, but even the apes-to-men evolution is fraught with statistical difficulties, please see my reply elsewhere today.

Thank you.

Yes. I have seen your assertions. Yes. I have seen your misuse of statistics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see two things above raised, if you'll allow me to redact your thoughtful post above, to simplify it, if I may:

1) You feel I moved the goalposts to abiogenesis when a) I'd prior discussed it on this thread b) I'd replied to SOMEONE ELSE that I mistakenly put "evolution" instead of abiogenesis in a prior post c) you and I as Christians can believe in evolution past "kinds" or "families" etc. without damaging faith, I don't think abiogenesis is in the same category and deserves careful evaluation d) you are clearly comfortable defending evolution but for some reason, brought up abiogenesis, which I was discussing with SOMEONE ELSE, yet we BOTH KNOW it remains unproven conjecture as far as evidence/forensics/laboratory work (by intelligent designer scientists, too) is concerned!

You moved the goal posts from establishing abiogenesis to there being no valid hypotheses of abiogenesis. It is not a feeling. It is recognition of the evidence. Your explanation is that hand waving you were talking about that does nothing to explain your logical fallacy. As a scientist 'kind' means nothing to me. As a Christian, it does not matter, since I am arguing on the basis of science.

My recognition of your logical fallacy of moving the goalposts was not based on some error you made to another poster, it was based on the evidence of you doing just that across two posts to me.

Abiogenesis remains untested, but valid, hypotheses. There is evidence enough to formulate they hypotheses, but as yet, not enough to fully test them. That is being worked on.

2) You are using a circular argument (abiogenesis and evolution are proven--even though they technically may not be inductively observed now--so the Bible is false) and you are making an extraordinary, reaching claim--"I don't need to go outside the Bible to disprove the Bible" even as I offer you evidence OUTSIDE the Bible to prove the Bible, which you further dismiss by 1) comparing it to drug addiction 2) saying the common canard of those who are closed-minded--and I believe better of you!--that "you've already heard all there is to claim here".

I am not. I never said or operate under the condition that abiogenesis has been confirmed, validated, supported or proven. We do not know, but we do have valid hypotheses, is my base of operations. On the evolution front, there is so much evidence that we are rapidly--maybe already passed the point--approaching a position that evidence leading to rejection would need to be tremendous and is of low probability of occurring.

You are very biased and close-minded. It has destroyed your entire approach and understanding of these subjects to the point that every poster addressing you has to wade through repetition of the same explained points over and over. This is not about a p***ing contest. It is an honest evaluation based on what I have read here. You are certain that evolution should be rejected, but have no reason for that certainty. Biased and close-minded a statement as there is. You repeat points that were long ago explained away. Biased and close-minded with no consideration of what you were told. How you can say that you are unbiased and open-minded, given the evidence, is astounding. I can only counsel you to throw out this bias and open your mind to learning before you decide to attack science.

I do not recall a reference to drug addiction, but since you brought it up, it does have some corollaries with the behavior of biased theists bent on proving their position no matter how much evidence shows they have not and cannot. Much like drug users continually chasing that high they will never achieve.

Your passage here is another example of your bias, close-minded reliance on logical fallacies in addressing me. I never said that the Bible is false. Ever. I said that it cannot be demonstrated to be infallible. No one can do that. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. What I have said is that the story of creation, the flood and the diversity of life as presented in Genesis does not fit the evidence that we have and is not supported by that evidence. That alone should be enough to establish that the Bible is not infallible to an reasonable, unbiased and open-minded person.

REALLY?! You've heard EVERY argument for Bible truth that exists? I'm still wading through true and false claims re: the Bible, decades after making an initial choice for inerrancy.

I have heard many of the claims you have made over and over. You are not breaking new ground by making assertions that you do not support. If I had discovered the information you claim to, I would be presenting it and explaining it in detail anywhere I could. Request to you to reveal that information been demurred in what I consider to be classic hand waving.

In order to support your assertion that the Bible is infallible, you would have to have established things that have never been established by anyone.

I am not unsympathetic to your desire, but I see no reason what you want is necessary to a belief in God, establishment of Christian theology, acceptance of Christ and learning from the Bible.

I want to believe you are open-minded, but my faith is waning here. Please help me.

I am not sure why. I am open-minded. That does not mean that I jump on anything another Christian says without evaluating or I am not going to tell another Christian that they are wrong. That would be false witness. I cannot stand for that. You should not either.

I am sticking with you and I have evidence that you are biased and close-minded. But if you feel you cannot deal with someone that tells you the facts, I understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If by 'addressing', you mean asserting and reiterating without providing any explanation as to their actual relevance, then yes.

That is what the evidence tells me too. If he has done more than assert and repeat, then it was not on this forum.

Regarding chirality (I have posted some of these on here before for you - guess you ignored it so you could keep making the same lame 'arguments'):

• Hazen, R.M. and D.S. Sholl (2003b) “Origins of biomolecular homochirality: selective molecular adsorption on crystalline surfaces.” Astrobiology 2, 598-599.
• Downs, R.T. and R.M. Hazen (2004) “Chiral indices of crystalline surfaces as a measure of enantioselective potential.” Journal of Molecular Catalysis 216, 273-285.
• Hazen, R.M. (2004) “Chiral crystal faces of common rock-forming minerals.” In G. Palyi, C. Zucchi and L Cagglioti, Eds. Progress in Biological Chirality. New York: Elsevier, Chapter 11, pp.137-151.
• Hazen, R.M. (2005) Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 339 p.
• Hazen, R.M. (2005) “Genesis: Rocks, minerals and the geochemical origin of life.” Elements 1, #3 (June, 2005), 135-137.
• Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley and G.A. Goodfriend (2001) “Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: implications for biochemical homochirality.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US), 98: 5487-5490.
• Asthagiri, A. and R.M. Hazen (2006) “An ab initio study of adsorption of alanine on the chiral calcite (2131) surface.” Molecular Simulation 33, 343-351
• Asthagiri, A, and R. M. Hazen (2008) An ab initio study of adsorption of aspartic acid on the chiral calcite (2131) surface. In preparation.

All that sciency stuff. Science is hard.

You know this means that I will be tracking down the references on your list that I do not already have and reading them to increase my understanding. I guess somebody here has to. I just wish it was the voices raised in opposition and doing it with an open mind bent on learning and understanding. That would be refreshing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1) See my replies to Dan from Smithville, regarding specific issues that crop up with abiogenesis and rapid evolution.

2) You are doing me, and as important, you, a great disservice by claiming I cannot overcome Bible issues to prove the Bible, but then pushing more rhetoric to disallow me from even attempting to answer--so I won't.

That is hand waving. You claim you not only can support your assertions, you can prove them, but you will not present that, because of some asserted insult or some other silly reason.

I think we all accept that you believe the Bible is infallible. In 2,000 years, no one has been able to establish that. You claim you can, but refuse to provide the support for your claims. It is has moved beyond silly now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's a respectful way for me to say, do you think, "As my fellow instructor, please stop behaving like a degenerate (if you'll pardon my using a Darwinian term of evolution to describe your present demeaning behavior to our profession)".

Are you some kind of academic? What field?

I think he is one of a growing number of your audience that would like to see you understand this stuff rather than continue the biased and pointless effort of proving it wrong without understanding, because you find it emotionally disturbing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Projection.

Among other things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL!

So, this college professor (LOL) with no biology background actually thinks that every nucleotide substitution, every deletion, every insertion, every genome-rearrangement, every transposition, every DIFFERENCE between any two taxa etc., are all NECESSARY for evolution and must be accounted for in such a way as to defy the laughably inept means of deducing their 'probability' in a post-hoc fashion...

And these people wonder why we laugh at them?

WHY are '32 million base pairs' (where ever that number came from) complex at all?
MOST of the differences between any two taxa are not relevant to evolution!

Does this genius realize that any 2 human genomes differ by as much as ~51 MILLION bases? That is... let me check my cac-a-later -
19 million MORE than the number you claim to exist between humans and chimps that is, darn it, just too complex to have occurred via evolution!!

Your 'math' and thus your argument is a JOKE.

But...but...but...what about the monkeys?

 

[gnostic]

I can simplify:

I have not rejected the Infinite Monkey Theorem as it applies to evolution, sampled as simply getting "new" in sequence = 1*26^3 (!), since people studying the IMT used it to measure that if every atom in the universe were a typing monkey since Planck time, they still wouldn't have written Hamlet--and "simple, easy" evolutionary change like chimps or other apes to men (32 million base pairs) is immensely more complex than the letters which string together to make the Hamlet play. Oh, and my comments are conservative in numbers:

"The probability that monkeys filling the observable universe would type a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero)." Source: Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia

You know these facts of statistics and numbers, and I believe you have grappled with them, regarding evolution, yet the difference between us here is also simple--I'm certain natural selection and the other proposed/theorized mechanisms explaining how abiogenesis and evolution decreases the immense, near-infinite odds, lack much explanatory power. For example, your statement above:

"There are a bunch of bases in our DNA. Sure."

...respectfully, very respectfully, it sounds like you are hand-waving to explain away--without actually explaining, really--32 million base pair differences achieved, as I put it based on the odds--as relatively rapid (generations over 10 to 60 million years, apes to men).

You have put this absurd analogy of monkey or chimps typing up Shakespeare’s play or sonnet before at other threads before like in A simple case for Intelligent Design and in Intelligent Design???

They were ridiculous and unrealistic then, and as they are now. Why are you recycling your BS analogy.

It certainly has nothing to do with Evolution or with Abiogenesis. How about sticking to the existing evidences for Evolution, instead of your make believe scenario.

You want to debunk human evolution, the link between humans and chimpanzees, then use and compare the DNA, the chromosomes, the genome, the physical morphology, the fossils, etc.

Perhaps you should compare the monkey typing Hamlet with Intelligent Design or with Creationism.

Second.

While you can use statistics to make predictions in probabilities, they only work with real numbers and real data, to predict probable events.

They do not work some cranks using make-believe numbers to some impossible and highly improbable events. All you get are some imaginary numbers with highly delusional events.

Using your Infinite Monkey Theorem should be used to compare with Genesis creation of dust transforming into man (Genesis 2) or with Intelligent Design may be more apt comparisons.

The possibility of turning dust into a living and breathing adult male human (Adam) is as remote as the stupid possibility of monkey typing Hamlet.

Neither of them are real. One is an impossible myth, and the other is simply ridiculous analogy, both of them are unrealistic and illogical, and both are highly improbable.

They are so ridiculously illogical, that it speaks volume of your character and questionable judgment.

 

[Tiberius]

I've address chirality, abiogenesis, and problems I perceive with them and with "rapid" evolution elsewhere, with Dan from Smithville. Have a look.

If you wish to communicate a particular point, then you must communicate it. At the very least, you could give me a link.

If it's too much of a hassle for you to support your own point, I don't see why you'd expect me to do it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you wish to communicate a particular point, then you must communicate it. At the very least, you could give me a link.

If it's too much of a hassle for you to support your own point, I don't see why you'd expect me to do it.

Don't you just love the creationist style of argument. Make an assertion, then demand that others support it for you. When others ask for reasons, evidence, or references, just repeat the assertion or say that it is explained somewhere else. If people continue to ask, feign being insulted and just declare you are not going to waste explanation on people who act__fill in the blank with any excuse or accusation__.

 

[gnostic]

2) You are doing me, and as important, you, a great disservice by claiming I cannot overcome Bible issues to prove the Bible, but then pushing more rhetoric to disallow me from even attempting to answer--so I won't.

That we don’t have the original MT and the original Septuagint, to work with, but copies of these sources, are not mere rhetoric, they are date-able literary evidences.

The Septuagint not only differs in some chapters and verses to that of the Masoretic Text, but the different Septuagint codices differ with each other, only highlighted the inconsistencies found in the Bible.

And when compared them with the Samaritan Torah (or Samaritan Pentateuch), you get more differences that cannot be explain away as mere typos or copying errors.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls differed from other sources.

Most modern English translations of the Bible relied on the Masoretic Text as the main source for the Old Testament, but some of these translations might supplement their works with the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and rarely would they ever use Samaritan Torah.

The use of multiple different sources are matter of each translators’ discretion.

And I can tell you now, I have read enough different translations of the “Bible” to know that none of them are inerrant and infallible.

And like Dan have been explaining to you, your claim of infallible or inerrant Bible is a matter of your (biased) personal belief. No infallible Bible exist.

Tell me, which version of the Bible do you rely on or used frequently?

And how would you determine this version is infallible?

 

[Tiberius]

Don't you just love the creationist style of argument. Make an assertion, then demand that others support it for you. When others ask for reasons, evidence, or references, just repeat the assertion or say that it is explained somewhere else. If people continue to ask, feign being insulted and just declare you are not going to waste explanation on people who act__fill in the blank with any excuse or accusation__.

Exactly!