Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[benny]

Another paradigm shift has occurred in the realm of cognitive sciences, as neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists are abandoning behaviourism and psychoanalytic theory as they use tools that can cross-reference brain activity with mental states.....and you seem to have missed this paradigm shift big time!

There is a new paradigm shift, I think, where all tools that humans used, beginning by letters and numbers, are tokens in self-referential games.

[WIP]

WIP,

So you love to point out the "creationist" site that I gave. But what about the link on this podcast you pin your hope on??? EVOLUTION 101!

Not only is it an evolution site....but the argument of this "biologist" guy - at least that's what he claim he is - is so full of reference to TALKORIGIN!

I have one word for you:

E X T R A P O L A T I O N.

Check out the article on DARWIN: Teaching Darwin in School.

Click the link and read the whole article that explains about this. Btw, check the credentials of the author. Easily VERIFIABLE. He's not just someone who could quite easily claim to be a psychiatrist on his "profile".

His blog includes a public profile if you want to look it up, that indicates he is a molecular biologist who lives in Dallas, Texas. http://www.blogger.com/profile/16991061670470673718 and his personal profile shows he is a very public advocate for science education and freethought, if you know how to follow the links! His more recent blog includes a complete resume of education, bio-medical work and his list of published research in the field: http://www.drzach.net/index.php?option=com...6&Itemid=53

Zachary Moore's later podcasts included some lectures and debates he had engaged in way down there in the buckle of the bible belt. He is presently doing a podcast debating religion and theology called Apologia and is the executive director of the North Texas Church of Freethought

Now that we've established that he is a real scientist who also has an active interest in teaching evolution and advancing the freethought movement (atheists, agnostics, deists etc.), let's go back to the points he made in his Evolution 101 blog: If you read his blog entries, you would notice that the Talkorigins references are there because he felt that the six part presentation by Douglas Theobold of Talkorigins covered the right information, but was presented in a confusing manner for the general reader, and that's why he cleaned it up by adding more explanations of technical terminology to make this subject easier for the general reader. Go and read Theobold's entries on the same subjects and tell me which one is a better presentation!

Now, back to the subject you are dodging:

Endogenous Retro-viruses

1. why would God create unique organisms with viral codes spliced into their genomes? (8% of the human genome for example)

2. why would humans and related primates share common ERV insertions?

Protein Functional Redundancy

There are 10^93 possible ways to create Cytochrome C amino acid chains and every single one of them can be used by any plant or animal for metabolic function -- so why do humans and chimpanzees share the same version of Cytochrome C? Why are there 10 amino acids different in the version developed by more distantly related mammals? And 51 different amino acids in the Cytochrome C of insects and other very different animals?

If animals, including humans, are unique creations, your god has gone to a lot of trouble to follow the common morphology patterns that have been previously indicated by fossils as evidence for evolution from a common ancestor! So why would your god want to fool scientists into believing in evolution, rather than showing evidence of his creation abilities?

Are there any creationist alibis for these problems in creation mythology? Or is the only creationist option to attack the credentials of their adversaries?

[GostHacked]

You forget as it is almost impossible to find a family doctor - it is also getting more difficult to find skilled and talented surgeons - some surgeons are no better than witch doctors...spoke to a crying girl in the chapel of an east Toronto hospital - they punctured her bladder while attempting to remove a tatoo. Another doctor threatened to remove a section of bowel as punishment for not following his strick instructions - so we fired him and kept the bowel with no problems - Doctors are not what they once were - the quality has gone down...along with nurses - one in particular..confided in me - the young woman was holding a syringe of morphine - and looked me in the face and smiled - "this is what we use to get rid of old people" - so tell me who the witch doctors really are?

All of this is pure bullshit. Also, where do you get this stuff?? And I will still take a surgeon over a witchdoctor any day

WIP

If animals, including humans, are unique creations, your god has gone to a lot of trouble to follow the common morphology patterns that have been previously indicated by fossils as evidence for evolution from a common ancestor! So why would your god want to fool scientists into believing in evolution, rather than showing evidence of his creation abilities?

I have your answer. The Devil did it.

[betsy]

Extrapolate - to arrive at (conclusions or results) by hypothesizing from known facts or observations.

To speculate as to consequences on the basis of (known facts or observations).

MANY OF US were taught these Darwinian extrapolatory links to the evolutionary narrative in high school, usually with photographs of the European peppered moth (Biston betularia), which became darker with environmental pollution and thus less conspicuous to bird predators in industrial areas. The same idea springs up in discussions of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or of the transformation of the beaks of finches under the pressure of drought. We were taught in high school that these observable biologic changes display evolution "in front of your eyes."

But not everyone agreed with this conclusion. Many criticized the Darwinists for extrapolating too far, and now the Darwinists confess that actual, observable variation--whether in the barnyard or in nature--demonstrates only the capacity of a species population to vary within limits

Scientists should tell what they actually know and how they know it, as distinct from what they believe and are trying to advance.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Prot...7xndpp.asp?pg=2

Edited May 13, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

We were taught in high school that these observable biologic changes display evolution "in front of your eyes."

How could schools justify other thing than the most primitive of rat race? Children are sent there in order for their parents to work without end.

[WIP]

WIP

I have your answer. The Devil did it.

I forget who said it, but there was a prominent clergyman a couple of centuries ago who declared that dinosaur fossils being dug up in France were artifacts left by satan. It wouldn't be too big of a stretch for fundamentalists to invoke the devil this time also.

[WIP]

Scientists should tell what they actually know and how they know it, as distinct from what they believe and are trying to advance.[/i]

Which they do! And if any claims can't be supported with evidence, there are always rivals who will try to knock them down in the peer review process. If that yardstick of differentiating actual knowledge from unsupported beliefs was applied to religion, they would have almost nothing to talk about!

And since you are advancing creationism as a scientific theory, do you have a reasonable explanation for the common ERV insertions shared by humans, gorillas and chimpanzees? Or why the Cytochrome C protein used by plants and animals for metabolism, is differentiated along lines that would be expected from animals that have a common ancestor -- with humans and chimps sharing the same amino acid structure and varying degrees of difference in more distant mammals and reptiles and insects.

I'm still waiting for that explanation of why God chooses to create unique animals in a manner that would have been expected if they had evolved from common ancestors!

[betsy]

Zachary Moore's later podcasts included some lectures and debates he had engaged in way down there in the buckle of the bible belt. He is presently doing a podcast debating religion and theology called Apologia and is the executive director of the North Texas Church of Freethought

Now that we've established that he is a real scientist who also has an active interest in teaching evolution and advancing the freethought movement (atheists, agnostics, deists etc.),

At least it's out on the table what this guy's trying to advance! He is a perfect example of the article I'd given you regarding scientists who don't give you exactly what they know.

Now, back to the subject you are dodging:

Yes, your podcast article of WHAT IFs. Another fantasy - extrapolation - that's being advanced to be accepted as fact! And who's the target audience?

but this is just a podcast, targeted toward non-science people,

Those who wouldn't know from squat! The easily-hoodwinked. The gullible.

Evolution 1o1 my foot! This is BRAINWASH 101!

"A virus is about as low as you can go on the complexity scale of life and still have people arguing about whether is actually qualifies as something that’s actually alive

If you remember me talking about transposons from two weeks ago, you remember that a transposon is basically just mobile DNA that has to stay within a cell. Well, a virus is just a little more complex than that- it’s mobile DNA that can leave a cell."

"A little more complex".....yet so simply "explained."

Then he goes...

"It violates almost all criteria for life, and yet… it is organized, it is composed of the same macromolecules that all other life forms are composed of, and it can reproduce.

These viruses use RNA as their template and make more RNA copies from that template, which are then translated into protein. But there’s another variety of RNA viruses that is a little more complicated."

No kidding.

Some of you may be thinking- hey, these retroviruses sound awfully similar to the retrotransposons you talked about before- and they are, certainly. It seems very likely that that retroviruses and retrotransposons share common ancestry way back in the past, but trying to establish which one came first is more than a little difficult at this point.

SEEMS VERY LIKELY! Seems very likely is not a fact....but obviously, this is being advanced as a fact.

So, now everyone knows what a retrovirus is, I hope, but what is an endogenous retrovirus? Well, you know that a retrovirus functions by inserting its DNA into the genome of its host cell. Once that happens, the DNA is there for the entire life of the cell. But what if that cell has an exceptionally long life? What if it’s, for lack of a better word, immortal? Germ cells are kind of immortal- the cells that are passed on to descendents during procreation.

WHAT IF????? What if?????

But what if it's not? But what if it's not?

The evolutionary hypothesis would posit that for any two given organisms, finding common ERV sequences in their respective genomes would be a confirmation of common heredity between them,

A clear example of EXTRAPOLATION!

And you're gobbling it up as a fact! You, my friend, are blinded by your faith!

Guys, when reading a supposed "proof" by any evolutionist scientist....look for those key words!

The excerpts were taken from:

http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/...endogenous.html

Edited May 13, 2009 by betsy

[Molly]

[

MANY OF US were taught these Darwinian extrapolatory links to the evolutionary narrative in high school, usually with photographs of the European peppered moth (Biston betularia), which became darker with environmental pollution and thus less conspicuous to bird predators in industrial areas. The same idea springs up in discussions of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or of the transformation of the beaks of finches under the pressure of drought. We were taught in high school that these observable biologic changes display evolution "in front of your eyes."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Prot...7xndpp.asp?pg=2

Just out of curiousity... how true is this? How 'many' of us were presented with darkened pepper moths, and/or drought -affected finch beaks, or similarly weak examples, and taught that these changes display evolution 'in front of our eyes'? (I'll set aside bacterial resistances, because that actually can be a pretty good example of evolution in action, though I cannot recall it being offered to me.)

His statement is not true for me-- and it's not for lack of opportunity since I took more biology classes than all but a very few laymen-- but is it true for others?

[betsy]

His statement is not true for me-- and it's not for lack of opportunity since I took more biology classes than all but a very few laymen-- but is it true for others?

What can I say? You're a real fundamentalist....a true believer of your faith!

I'm not interested in what you believe is true or not true. Heck, the last time I saw you....you were talking to yourself, trying to figure out how to understand....

And you were humming Twilight Zone!

Edited May 13, 2009 by betsy

[Molly]

Is it true for you? Were you presented with dark moths and finch beaks (or similarly weak examples) and told that it was a display of 'evolution in front of your eyes'?

Yes or no would suffice.

[benny]

Which they do! And if any claims can't be supported with evidence, there are always rivals who will try to knock them down in the peer review process. If that yardstick of differentiating actual knowledge from unsupported beliefs was applied to religion, they would have almost nothing to talk about!

Here lay the superiority of religion over science. Religion knows better than science that no community (and scientific community is no exception) can be built where there is almost nothing to talk about. Think for instance at what our society would be like if economists (a kind of scientists) who appears in mainstream media would differentiate too much between actual knowledge and unsupported beliefs.

[WIP]

[/b]

At least it's out on the table what this guy's trying to advance! He is a perfect example of the article I'd given you regarding scientists who don't give you exactly what they know.

Yes, your podcast article of WHAT IFs. Another fantasy - extrapolation - that's being advanced to be accepted as fact! And who's the target audience?

Those who wouldn't know from squat! The easily-hoodwinked. The gullible.

Evolution 1o1 my foot! This is BRAINWASH 101!

Coming from a gullible fool who soaks up every stupid claim that creationist bloggers write without offering any proof. A little learning is a dangerous thing, and you obviously have no interest in learning about a technical subject which would collapse the mythology you choose to believe instead.

But for the curious creationists, the biologist who produced this series of podcasts and blog entries on evolution, did so after going to work in an area of the U.S. where the vast majority of people believe everything was created 6000 years ago, and the trouble with trying to explain to people that he is an evolutionist because he has to use the principles of evolutionary theory every day to do his work! And that's why there are a few scientists who set some time aside to teach the science that isn't allowed in many U.S. schools and is a total unknown to them.

As a sidenote, another example of protecting ignorance as a personal right and a further example of growing power of the religious right's defense of ignorance in the U.S. that is starting to rival the Muslim World, came up recently:

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.

The decision is the culmination of a 16-month legal battle between Corbett and Farnan – a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal “boundaries” as public school employees.

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett...84-farnan-selna

If any flat-earthers hear a teacher call their beliefs superstition, they'll be able to launch the follow-up lawsuit! Ignorance is bliss, and it's sanctioned by a legal philosophy that every stupid idea has to be respected.

"A little more complex".....yet so simply "explained."

Then he goes...

No kidding.

SEEMS VERY LIKELY! Seems very likely is not a fact....but obviously, this is being advanced as a fact.

WHAT IF????? What if?????

But what if it's not? But what if it's not?

First, do you understand what transposons are? You'll need to know before you make any comments about retrotransposons. The comparison between retrotransposons and retrovirsues is based on the fact that they both can reverse transcribe their RNA sequence into the cells's DNA. This ability of the retrotransposon is covered in part 3 which is specifically deals with the subject of transposons and their role in the genome.

A clear example of EXTRAPOLATION!

And you're gobbling it up as a fact! You, my friend, are blinded by your faith!

Guys, when reading a supposed "proof" by any evolutionist scientist....look for those key words!

The excerpts were taken from:

http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/...endogenous.html

Here we have a classic example of someone choosing ignorance rather than understanding. Genetics is obviously a difficult technical subject, and something that is difficult for those in the field to explain to a general, non-scientific audience. I would consider the scientists who take on the task of educating the public without compensation, and out of whatever free time they have available, to be performing a laudable public service. But for people who see new knowledge as a threat to their 6000 year old universe, they are in league with satan!

But notice one difference between Moore and other science bloggers such as those collected at scienceblogs.com The science bloggers will allow the reader enough information to be able to peak behind the curtain and understand the subject, whereas the creationist bloggers extract quotes to either make a creationist claim or disparage the work of the evolutionary theorist without bothering to explain any technical information -- your creationist blogger for example: who did not explain why different types of genes would change a comparison from 98 to 87%, because he was trying to lead his reader to the false conclusion that the 98% number was in error rather than based on a different set of information.

Now, since you are advancing a scientific claim that life on earth does not come from common origins, do you have any explanations yet for why there are common ERV insertions in the human, gorillas and chimpanzee genomes? Or why the Cytochrome C protein used by plants and animals for metabolism, is differentiated along lines that would be expected from animals that have a common ancestor -- with humans and chimps sharing the same amino acid structure and varying degrees of difference in more distant mammals and reptiles and insects.

If your claim of unique creations is true, genomic evidence should show no relationships that would be expected if they branched from common origins. And creationist science needs an alibi for the common ERV insertions and common patterns of protein functional redundancy.

[cybercoma]

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."[/b]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett...84-farnan-selna

The court's decision is faulty in this case. Mr. Corbett addressed a secular issue with his statement. How can one discuss the secular in a non-secular manner? It seems to me the court's decision is biased.

[betsy]

WIP....WIP....

That long rant about my faith won't do. I never denied what I am and what I believe.

Although I am a Creationist - I don't think I ever did debate about it with anyone.

The only times I mentioned about it or my belief, is when I was pointedly asked specifically about it. And usually in my reply I clarified that I was answering based on my faith.

How many times did I clearly state that "my faith has nothing to do with this?" I think it was with a discussion somewhere with Gosthack.

My conclusion is that, between the theory of Evolution and the theory of ID, the theory of ID is far more convincing. I've supported it with strong evidence. Now, that's the argument.

Check out the three threads and see I am consistent in that.

You've presented a "proof" from this podcast. And I've explained and shown you why that is not proof......it's just another extrapolation this guy's trying to pass for a fact.

You are using my belief as a means to deflect ...because you know what I said is true.

"SEEMS LIKE"....."MORE LIKELY"...."WHAT IFs".......and HYPOTHESES....are just speculations.

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

So...

...there were never any dinosaurs...or early hominids...or giant ferns for that matter.

...the trillions of other galaxies in the visible Universe are devoid of life...let alone other planets around stars in our own galaxy.

...science, while right about atomic bombs (they work) is incorrect about the age of the Earth.

...human kind (all shapes colours breeds etc) came from the incestious relationship of Eve and her sons? Help me out here.

...the Earth will end as per: 'The Revelation of St John' rather than when the Sun grows into a Red Giant some 5 billion years from now.

Nice to know religion has the answers.

Edited May 13, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[benny]

Coming from a gullible fool who soaks up every stupid claim that creationist bloggers write without offering any proof. A little learning is a dangerous thing, and you obviously have no interest in learning about a technical subject which would collapse the mythology you choose to believe instead.

But for the curious creationists, the biologist who produced this series of podcasts and blog entries on evolution, did so after going to work in an area of the U.S. where the vast majority of people believe everything was created 6000 years ago, and the trouble with trying to explain to people that he is an evolutionist because he has to use the principles of evolutionary theory every day to do his work! And that's why there are a few scientists who set some time aside to teach the science that isn't allowed in many U.S. schools and is a total unknown to them.

As a sidenote, another example of protecting ignorance as a personal right and a further example of growing power of the religious right's defense of ignorance in the U.S. that is starting to rival the Muslim World, came up recently:

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.

The decision is the culmination of a 16-month legal battle between Corbett and Farnan – a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal “boundaries” as public school employees.

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett...84-farnan-selna

If any flat-earthers hear a teacher call their beliefs superstition, they'll be able to launch the follow-up lawsuit! Ignorance is bliss, and it's sanctioned by a legal philosophy that every stupid idea has to be respected.

This court case was not science vs religion or ignorance, it was the hate or hubris of a science teacher vs respect for all students:

Farnan's lawsuit had cited more than 20 inflammatory statements attributed to Corbett, including "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

In an April 3 tentative ruling, however, (Judge ) Selna dismissed all but two of the statements as either not directly referring to religion or as being appropriate in the context of a class lecture, including the headline-grabbing "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett...84-farnan-selna

[betsy]

Is it true for you?

Remind me of an old pop sex question among women that refers to orgasm.

(Cue 'Twilight Zone' music.)

'Radsickle'[/b] date='May 11 2009, 07:01 PM' post='418628']

(echo's twilight zone music)

EEEEEK!

Get away from me! YOU'RE CONTAGIOUS!!!!

See? You gave it to Rad!!!!

Now you're doing duets....going on with your idle and senseless humming! Mind you, you do seem to be in perfect harmony - not a plug for on-line dating, but there's a thought. A good match I must say! Meeting of the "minds".....whatever that is.

I don't know if it's politically correct to say "soul-mates." I guess not.

Twilight Zone soundtrack to what seems like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers! Or Mind-Snatchers. The Board's vcitim #1 and #2.

Where did it all originate?

But you two go ahead enjoy yourselves. Keep humming together!

I don't want to be the #3. Get another Atheist!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[Molly]

Yes/no on a matter of your own subjective experience too tricky a question for you?

No matter. It was directed more at anyone/everyone else. My expectation is that you a) have never recieved any education in biology, or b ) didn't understand a word of it if you did, or c) wouldn't answer honestly anyway.

I realize that you are a little slow, and much more interested in being abrasive than in engaging in dialogue, but the reason I'd like replies on that question is because he is describing clear overselling-- false instruction. If that paragraph is accurate, then it is a serious issue, and he really has a point. (If, on the other hand, it is hyperbole- intentional or not-, then he's just another faith-based liar.)

It is not my experience, but my experience is not necessarily representative , and I cannot 'extrapolate' the experiences of others so as to honestly assess whether it is a credible report. (I could, however, extrapolate using other indicators, and will have to if no one chooses to answer. )

Edited May 14, 2009 by Molly

[betsy]

Yes/no on a matter of your own subjective experience too tricky a question for you?

Not tricky. It's just that you still don't get it. You don't even recognize why your last question regarding reminiscence of biology classes is irrelevant.

See what happens when you fool around with that catchy tune?

I realize that you are a little slow, and much more interested in being abrasive

Check your past posts! Read from the start of this thread. And other threads.

If you can't take the same medicine, then don't dish it out!

and I cannot 'extrapolate' the experiences of others so as to honestly assess whether it is a credible report.

Btw, how many "others" do you need to come to a conclusion that this is credible?"

Doing a "survey" now, are we? Start a poll thread if that's your thingy....although I don't think it will give you a credible conclusion.

It is not my experience, but my experience is not necessarily representative , and I cannot 'extrapolate' the experiences of others so as to honestly assess whether it is a credible report. (I could, however, extrapolate using other indicators, and will have to if no one chooses to answer. )

What is this? Twice in a row! All of a sudden the word "extrapolate" is popular with you.

I wonder if you even knew that word existed before this?

Speaking of the word....and speaking of relevancy.....keep going, don't give up. It may take a while but you'll eventually get there. You'll finally catch on.

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[Molly]

Oh, I get it all right.

Betsy 'believes' what Betsy believes, and any interruption in her metaphysical masturbation is irrelevant.

[betsy]

Oh, I get it all right.

Betsy 'believes' what Betsy believes, and any interruption in her metaphysical masturbation is irrelevant.

[BubberMiley]

Betsy 'believes' what Betsy believes, and any interruption in her metaphysical masturbation is irrelevant.

Eeew...I watched the Exorcist last week.

Edited May 14, 2009 by BubberMiley

[betsy]

Oh, I get it all right.

Betsy 'believes' what Betsy believes, and any interruption in her metaphysical masturbation is irrelevant.

Hey Moll, cheer up! Your lure is working. See? Right on cue....

Victim # 3 just stumbled around the corner.

Eeew...I watched the Exorcist last week.

Btw, how many do you want for a chorus?

Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

Hey Moll, cheer up! Your lure is working. See? Right on cue....

Victim # 3 just stumbled around the corner.

Ladies! Please consider hermeneutics.