In effect, masses of your people are no better than wealthy but intensely superstitious peasants. Don't forget that America was formed by religious bigots who couldn't tolerate normal life in Europe but who wanted to go to a place where they could impose their intolerant beliefs on others. I think Rhode Island was the only sane state. All the others were bastions of bigotry in one form or another, and that has never been thrown off because as a new country it attracts the poor and uneducated from all over the world ... people with energy ... the energy to bring their intolerance due to their lack of education with them.
My apologies. I also think most Americans are very charming and decent people.
Evolution or not?
Sort:
Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Bohr, Mendel, Hubble, Curie, Salk, Sandage, Kenyon were science deniers. 😃
You'd need to explain your reasoning. I don't reject ideas without first understanding them.
Were they all religious? Newton was exceptionally religious, it's true.
einstein99 wrote:
Oh, but it does Optimissed. If genomic information is building up slowly, then you wouldn't expect some bacteria to have bigger genomes than humans. You also wouldn't expect genome variations of a hundred fold within families of animals. These aren't gene duplications or junk DNA from bad mutations just sitting around, this is designed information which is necessary for the animals function. One would expect all kinds of mutational screw ups sitting around if random processes had any real creative power. They would also weigh the cell down to the point of not being able to function. Due to the fact that we don't see any sitting around suggests that random processes don't really have much of a role in evolutionary processes. What we do see are really amazingly designed creatures.
it doesnt necessary build up slowly, some mutations can cause duplications of long pieces of DNA. maybe its good to have more copies of the same DNA in some cases, for instance if radiaton messes up the DNA, it could be handy to have a good copy for the proteine. SO it could be that these guys live in strongly mutagene envireoments?
bacteria also DO dump DNA if they dont need it, they build up resistence to antibiotics for instance by evolution, but then loose the resistence if they dont encounter the antibiotic for some time, because smaller DNA means faster replication.
Then again, you are arguing as if you knew already what the bacteria (what's its name btw?) does with its massive DNA. We just dont know all about them yet, and we wont for probably several hundred years. It makes no sense to say "its got a big genome, i dont have a flying idea what the bacteria does with it, so therefore, design".
Antiscience people often vastly overestimate how much science knows and expects you can pick any bacteria (our of billions of species), weird shrub or jellyfish, point at any part of thir genome and then the scientists can tell what it does. When they cant they think "omg its all wrong".
Biology never claimed they know everything about every organism, far from it. Its more like in the vert beginning of it. We dont even know yet what lives on the bottom of the oceans, and not so many years ago they discovered the extremophiles and so on. There are many weird things they dont understand yet. You just gotta accept the unsecurity of it, that we know many things but other things we just flat out dont know about yet.
alex-rodriguez wrote:
In America there is a never ending war against science. Why? What's the problem? Why do science deniers deny the established truth of evolution by natural selection even though it's the strongest fact of science, supported by thousands of evidences from several branches of science?
The problem is the science deniers want to throw out science and replace it with their magical ideas. That's very strange because magic is just a childish fantasy and most certainly magic is not real.
There could nothing more anti-science than magic. So people who want to defend their magical ideas have to attack science, they have to attack scientists, and worst of all they have to attack science education.
Can this terrible problem be fixed? Can these people be cured, or is there some way to at least keep them from destroying science education?
So far it doesn't look good here in Idiot America. The science deniers always lose in court but that doesn't prevent them from harassing and threatening biology teachers, or trying to get laws passed to dumb down science education to accommodate their magical ideas.
Sometimes I think there is no hope for this country. We will forever be an international laughing stock.
I dont know if they are SO anti-science, i only think they have a problem with evolution and also climate science.
Its funny that when physics tell them super weird things like "time and space can be bent" and "we have succeded in freezing light" and such they just go "o well, he is a physicists and makes formulas, and if he says that time bends in the fourth dimension and he can freeze light, then thats all cool for me!"
But when they say that human and chimpansees are related (but 7 BILLION years ago!) which is something everyone can see really, 2 arms, 2 legs, many same facial expressions, both use tools, etc., many people guessed that by themselves before evolution theory, then they go all balistic :)
Optimissed wrote:
Were they all religious? Newton was exceptionally religious, it's true.
Manys scientists have been and are religions, Stephen Jay Gould, the American evolution scientist that died a few years ago, was Catholic. It was no problem for him though.
Consider some of the complex mechanisms in the cell, ATP synthase, RNA polymerase, Dynein dynactin transport systems, ribosome translation processes. proteosomes, etc. How did they get built by random processes. Its like suggesting the Hoover dam just built itself. ATP synthase is just like a rotary engine. Do engines just build themselves? Ribosomes have 220,000 specifically placed atoms in both of their sub units. Its an entire factory that builds proteins from the ground up. Factories just build themselves? Polymerases which transcribe at a rate of 850
nucleotides per second and can correct mistakes on the fly just came about by accident.
There's many languages within a cell. The DNA code, the codon and anticodon code, the glycogen code, which encodes more information than the DNA code, and others.
There are splicing programs, editing programs, elimination systems, signaling and transport systems, systems that allow only certain compounds in and out of the cell.
Finally there is encoded complex specified information throughout the cell, billions and billions of bits of it.
Simple reasoning says all these complex, interacting, specified and coherent systems are the result of design.
Abductive reasoning would also conclude this since after all we don't see this degree of complexity ever occurring by random actions, do we?
einstein99 wrote:
Consider some of the complex mechanisms in the cell, ATP synthase, RNA polymerase, Dynein dynactin transport systems, ribosome translation processes. proteosomes, etc. How did they get built by random processes. Its like suggesting the Hoover dam just built itself. ATP synthase is just like a rotary engine. Do engines just build themselves? Ribosomes have 220,000 specifically placed atoms in both of their sub units. Its an entire factory that builds proteins from the ground up. Factories just build themselves? Polymerases which transcribe at a rate of 850
nucleotides per second and can correct mistakes on the fly just came about by accident.
There's many languages within a cell. The DNA code, the codon and anticodon code, the glycogen code, which encodes more information than the DNA code, and others.
There are splicing programs, editing programs, elimination systems, signaling and transport systems, systems that allow only certain compounds in and out of the cell.
Finally there is encoded complex specified information throughout the cell, billions and billions of bits of it.
Simple reasoning says all these complex, interacting, specified and coherent systems are the result of design.
Abductive reasoning would also conclude this since after all we don't see this degree of complexity ever occurring by random actions, do we?
I told you before, and maybe i should repeat it again. All this stuff was found out by biology. It not some special secrets you discovered and the biologists will go "OOOH AAH we never knew organisme were that complex". The biologists who off course believe in evolution discivered these things working on ideas that are completely entangled with evolution. Then thet wrote down their discoveries you read 0,00001 % of it and by some bizarre reasoning you know think you know something the biologist dont lol.
Your reasoning is like reading someone's biography and then thinking you can surprise the guy with information from his own biograpy that he wrote himself lol.
Well, biology and biochemistry. Sure, we are discovering these complex and specified systems, but from real life experience they resemble factories, information systems,
computer processing systems, even garbage removal systems.
The DNA information library, messenger RNA transport system, and ribosomal translational process actually looks quite analogous to the Cad Cam technology found at the Boeing aircraft plant. Computer code is translated into machine code and then aircraft parts are manufactured by robots. This is pretty much the process how proteins are built.
Does anyone have any doubt that this process was designed, engineered and constructed. Does anyone think this technology came about by some random and incoherent process. 😕
It's just a superficial analogy, like saying "bikes can go fast, and horses can go fast, so bikes are horses".
Anything remembles anything really, a tree is like a tower because both are tall, a whale is like a ship becaue they are big things that move in the ocean. The argument is made by picking some random things that are the same and just ignore the things that are different, and then "proove" that they are the same. Just ignore bikes have legs and horses have legs.
A factory has a manager for instance surpervising how things work. Its not like he just design the factory and then leaves forever. He stays and it cannot run without him. The cell lacks a central manager and works in a completely different way.
The factory cannot repair itself either if half of it burns. Organisms can do that.
Factories dont get babies either :)
Factories don't build themselves either do they? 😕
If you understand both of the processes that I discussed, transcription and translation of proteins vs. Cad Cam technology, then you should be able to describe why they are superficially analogous, right? 😕
Thanks Razz, almost forgot. Even if the first cell built itself without being designed and constructed, how did the cell propagate itself. Mitosis or cell division is an extremely complicated process which is subdivided into for seperate processes? If the First cell hadn't evolved the capability yet then how did that first cell reproduce? 😕
einstein99 wrote:
Factories don't build themselves either do they? 😕
No, but cells and organisms builds themselves. And their DNA happened through evolution over 3,5 billion years or so. That's what science says.
This seems like a bit of a silly conversation. It's like I can't get close to you, Einstein, because you aren't being totally straightforward and open about your arguments. I mean, you've been asked this before but how old do you think the Earth is, and why? It's very relevant.
First answer post 173 Optimissed and I'll answer yours? 😕
einstein99 wrote:
If you understand both of the processes that I discussed, transcription and translation of proteins vs. Cad Cam technology, then you should be able to describe why they are superficially analogous, right? 😕
Well for instance cad cam tehnology isnt 3,5 billion years old and is vaslty less complex, as in probably milliond of times less complex. Its designed by some people with a specific purpuse, and protein translation just happened through evolution.
Its like explaining why a bycicle and a horse are different really. I dont really understand what you mean. Nature can create caves by underwater currents and humans and moles can make them by digging, they are both caves but got "created" by different ways, by themselves, by intelligent planned human design and "by instinct" since i assume moles do not draw a map of the cave system they want to make and assess time schedules before they start.
Its no mystery stuff that just "appeared" in nature looks like something humans designed. You dont go "OMG design created this" if you find a cave created by water right?
einstein99 wrote:
Thanks Razz, almost forgot. Even if the First cell built itself without being designed and constructed, how did the cell propagate itself. Mitosis or cell division is an extremely complicated process which is subdivided into for seperate processes? If they hadn't evolved The capability yet then how did that first cell reproduce? 😕
Well we dont know that yet, and so what? I think the field of research is called abiogenesis and their problem is that theres lots of theories and models and such, but no way to test them since you cannot go back in time to when life started and see what happened. Even when you can recreate some processes that end with life in a lab, you cannot know if this is the way it happened.
The first cells and organic molecules no doubly were much less complex than those that exist today. I recall some theories that only RNA existed for a while and not DNA.
As I already explained to you, science has lots and lots of holes and unknown things. Why i need to tell you again? Its not drama that there's riddles in science, its "yes yes, we know that already, working on it, and a thousand more problems you dont know about, and when we solve these thousend problems, we will get ten thousand more that we dont understand. Thats what science does".
The Cambrian animals appeared on the scene approximately 525 million years ago Muhammed. Within 5-6 million years during the Adtabanian and Tommotian periods of the Cambrian 16 phyla, 30 classes, and many more orders, families and species appeared in the geological record for the first time. They had completely new body plans with completely new body structures, organs, digestive systems, skeletons, nervous systems, brains, circulatory networks, etc., that had never been seen before.
The interesting thing about the Cambrian period is that
there are no proceeding animal forms from which the Cambrian animals could possibly have evolved from. Well, a few annealids and that's about it.
Gould summed it up by saying, 'The idea of smoothly transitioning forms will no longer wash'.
Noone ever claimed that the fossil record is complete. Blank spaces in biological histoy must be expected.
It's the same with human history, there are many blank spaces. But with human history, noone has a problem with that. If we dont know who built some castle or subway station, people can realize themselves its just because the knowledge got lost im time. Noone goes "WE DONT KNOW WHO BUILT THIS CASTLE SO IT MUST HAVE CAME OUTTA NOWHERE" lol.