Canadians divided over creation and evolution

benny · May 8, 2009

Totally irrelevant since the strength of objective standards is that they allow an independent comparison that is not dependent on our own subjective sense of ourselves and the world around us -- both of which can be errant and even subject to delusion. When someone who is mentally, such as a schizophrenic, finally reaches the stage where they are able to accept critical opinions of others, they are finally aware that they cannot put all of their trust in their own perceptions and beliefs.

What you think is here a capacity to be objective is, in fact, only and barely an inter-subjective capacity.

cybercoma · May 8, 2009

I have a sudden revelation about you at the moment. I know some posters are having the same revelation. You MUST be the Messiah?

Really? Because I always thought he was an alter ego for Oleg Bach.

Oleg Bach · May 8, 2009

Really? Because I always thought he was an alter ego for Oleg Bach.

Quoting Monty Pythons' "Life of Brian" -------------------------- There is no messiah here...no messiah in his right mind would admit to being one....Every man or woman that has the capacity to love and be loved is a messiah...my wife used to joke - that she was MS> sia. The truth is that most mortal human beings are animals with animated souls and no real spirit to speak of - the concept and power of love is not natural to the natural world - some can fake love but few have the genetic predispostion to actually have it ----it's not of this world - it is brought here - by...well -------------you miserable immortals... :lol:

benny · May 8, 2009

Objectivity is a comforting illusion and subjectivity is dreadfully real.

cybercoma · May 8, 2009

Your postmodernist drivel is nauseating. That's dreadfully real for me right now.

WIP · May 8, 2009

What you think is here a capacity to be objective is, in fact, only and barely an inter-subjective capacity.

And that's why I've stressed the limitations of objectivity. Intersubjectivity is close to the definition I'm looking for, since it based on shared cognition and arriving at some consensus.

betsy · May 8, 2009

Your "evidence" only proves that Darwin engaged in the study of nature as a scientist should - with an open mind.

Yes, open mind! As a scientist should! And I agree whole-heartedly! THAT'S in fact the point of my argument!

Quite the contrary to what Dawkins is busily engaged in.

If Darwin was writing today, 150 years after Origin of the Species, and was aware of the DNA molecule as the agent of replication, genomic analysis of related species of animals, endogenous retroviruses that are often shared by related species, broken DNA sequences that remain in the genome etc. -- where do you think he would stand today?

Seeing the angst he suffered, torn between "Design" and the pursuit of his theory - which he doubted, pls refer to thread on Darwin - where do you think he would stand today?

Here are my speculation(s)....based on the various researched evidences about Darwin.

First and foremost, he'll be blasting Dawkins for being so un-scientific! For making a mockery of science!

Then most likely, he'll be re-positioning himself behind the ID theory!

Or come up with something like it!

Edited May 8, 2009 by betsy

betsy · May 8, 2009

Since I'm on a role here, I want to introduce my favourite conclusive proof of evolution that creationism can't answer (I hope Segnosaur hasn't already covered this): Endogenous Retrovirsues
While listening to a podcast series on evolution by Dr. Zachary Moore a couple of years ago, called Evolution 101; Dr. Zach did a six part series on genomic analysis, particularily Junk DNA. Creationists and I.D.'rs try to dismiss DNA similarities of related species with lame excuses like "maybe God decided to use a similar blueprint for chimpanzees and humans" or some other half-assed explanation. So, among the junk DNA (non-coding genes) that make up 96% of the human genome, the one that caught my attention were endogenous retroviruses or ERV's.

ERV's come from viral infections that manage to pass to a newly fertilized egg cell during the fertilization stage, inserting their own DNA code into the genome of the host organism. If the host survives and grows to adulthood, its descendents will carry that foreign viral DNA in their genomes, although the viral sequences are likely non-coding as soon as they pass from one generation to the next. Dead viral DNA sequences make up 7% of the total human genome, so a lot of our genetic makeup is actually from foreign contaminants. Why would God use viruses to build the human DNA blueprint?

If humans and chimpanzees did not evolve from a common ancestor as creationists claim, we should not expect to find common ERV's between our species. Instead, as this chart reprinted in Talkorigins shows, there are at least 11 ERV's, many of which are shared by all primates, that are in both the human, gorilla and chimpanzee genomes. So why would God choose to code the same viral DNA sequences into two different organisms?

So you saw that Moore podcast two years ago. It's being R E F U T E D!

Evolution’s DNA Game: Anywhere from 98 to 70%

March 8, 2009 in Evolution | Tags: Charles Darwin, Creation, Darwin, DNA, Genetics, Intelligent Design, Science

"From time to time, there’s a new statistic that comes out which compares the DNA of humans to that of chimps. Due to the similarity in the genetics, these statistics are accompanied by news reports in the media and scientific publications as “proof” that Darwin was right about the descent of man from ape-like creatures. The most commonly cited statistic that I know of says that humans and chimps differ by about 1.5% genetically.

From this, it would seem that such an apparent major similarity between chimps and humans in their DNA seems to show that Creationists are fighting a losing battle in the Evolution-Creation debate. But the question then becomes: “Does similarity necessarily prove common descent?”

A comparison of different analysis’ of the genetic comparisons between chimps and humans seem to show that this is not so clear-cut. They show that different researchers come to different conclusions as to how related we are to chimps. — A certain study from the National Academy of Sciences reveals that,

The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA.

The difference between this statistic and the earlier one is that the figure of 95% includes the indels while the earlier one doesn’t. Also, yet another study shows that the similarity may be even less, at only 86.7% meaning that the divergence is 13.3%. This also includes the indels. So, with differing results it seems that there is no consensus to the exact similarity between humans and chimps.

But there’s more. Recently Dr. Richard Buggs, a research geneticist at the University of Florida, reported that the apparent similarity of 98.5% between chimps and humans was misleading. After taking into account many differences between the two genomes that numerous studies do not, he concludes that the genetic similarity may actually be lower than 70%.

If the genetic similarity between chimps and humans is between 95% and 70%, then in my view this could bring up certain implications. What I mean is that the DNA of mice is only different from ours by only 2.5% and therefore 97.5% the same. And yet, another statistic shows that our genes are 99% the identical to theirs. So since the DNA of mice is debatably more similar to ours than ours is to that of chimps, this could create a problem for the assumption that chimpanzees are our closest cousins."

http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2009/...-from-98-to-70/

Edited May 8, 2009 by betsy

benny · May 8, 2009

And that's why I've stressed the limitations of objectivity. Intersubjectivity is close to the definition I'm looking for, since it based on shared cognition and arriving at some consensus.

Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.

This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...ge/feyerabe.htm

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.
This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.

Without this anarchistic enterprise, you would not be able to use the series of tubes that is called the Internet. And yes, anything goes. Dare to dream. Dare to bring it to reality. Dare to look beyond your box and use your senses and explore the world. This world.

I am sure you love progress as much as I do. If not, get off my Internets.

Sir Bandelot · May 10, 2009

Without this anarchistic enterprise, you would not be able to use the series of tubes that is called the Internet. And yes, anything goes. Dare to dream. Dare to bring it to reality. Dare to look beyond your box and use your senses and explore the world. This world.
I am sure you love progress as much as I do. If not, get off my Internets.

Anything goes isn't necessarily the best philosophy. Thats liberalism.

benny · May 10, 2009

Without this anarchistic enterprise, you would not be able to use the series of tubes that is called the Internet. And yes, anything goes. Dare to dream. Dare to bring it to reality. Dare to look beyond your box and use your senses and explore the world. This world.
I am sure you love progress as much as I do. If not, get off my Internets.

Internet is more a revolution than a progress (evolution).

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

Internet is more a revolution than a progress (evolution).

How we use it. that is the revolution. The Internet has had to evolve to take on the extra information flowing through. It started out as a military project to connect US military bases' computers. This was about 50 years ago. You could even download digital newspapers in the 80s.

The progress of the Internet even in the last 10 years is staggering.

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

Here is something to chew on

http://www.fukung.net/v/14314/science-vs-religion.jpg

cybercoma · May 10, 2009

Here is something to chew on
http://www.fukung.net/v/14314/science-vs-religion.jpg

Good one.

benny · May 10, 2009

Here is something to chew on
http://www.fukung.net/v/14314/science-vs-religion.jpg

Bad faith.

Molly · May 10, 2009

A deadly accurate illustration!

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

Bad faith.

http://westrum.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/holy-facepalm.jpg

http://sondrak.com/images/uploads/pope_face_palm.jpg

benny · May 10, 2009

http://westrum.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/holy-facepalm.jpg
http://sondrak.com/images/uploads/pope_face_palm.jpg

Half heartless.

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

Half heartless.

Science had no emotion.

benny · May 10, 2009

Science had no emotion.

Art has.

bush_cheney2004 · May 10, 2009

Art has.

Art fart.

benny · May 10, 2009

Art fart.

a..

cybercoma · May 11, 2009

Science is not about emotion, art is. They're completely separate things. Religion is an art, not a science. It should leave knowledge of the physical world to science.

benny · May 11, 2009

Science is not about emotion, art is. They're completely separate things. Religion is an art, not a science. It should leave knowledge of the physical world to science.

Your two pictures are of interest for art, religion and science alike.