creation vs evolution [total relism] vs [the rifelman] Commentary thread

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy...iw=671&bih=345

If it's a personal email, ask him why it appears on so many websites?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Apparently TR wasnt the only one to receive a "Personal letter" from David.

Quite an honour TR to receive such a letter. I wonder how many "personal letters" you receive from Nigerian businessmen too.


http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=527 - The rest of the "Personal Letter".

Damn Ferrets you beat me.

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

Also, as a Mathematician I'm not sure why the man's opinion on evolutionary theory is relevant. Also worth noting his published works have been criticised for being historically and mathematically incorrect.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I just find it funny that the guy claims he was thrown out of the community for believing in Creationism but he remarked how his fellow scientists liked to joke about Darwin and how false evolution is. Curious but wouldnt that mean they are falsifying data, knowingly?

[Phier]

He was apparently thrown out for being a crack pot who thinks denial without proof is somehow science, and in this case 'thrown out' means 'no one would hire'.

[alexanderswift]

I'd be curious to hear what he says about wisdom teeth. (An argument for evolution which I've always liked.)

[Nyxos]

I'd be curious to hear what he says about wisdom teeth. (An argument for evolution which I've always liked.)

He'd do what they all do, ignore it or redirect the question.


I checked out André Eggen, and even on French google, he is quite hard to find. He decoded the cow's DNA so he's a serious geneticist. He created (with no relation whatsoever with his job) the only French organization that is listed in the global creationist network. That organization has about 30 members...

Google translate of the article cause I cba to translate it myself

André Eggen, a scientist at the Bible In France, the most active militant creationist called André Eggen. It is one of the few to take on this label fully and without pretense. But careful though, because if he would meet me, it "provided that it is not to break the creationist." The day, he is director of research in animal genetics at the National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) - where it comes from elsewhere to contribute to the genome of the cow - and the weekend, he leads creationist conferences. "Personally," he says. It is believing, evangelical Protestant, and founder of "In the beginning," one French organization listed in the network world premiere. Association has only thirty members, "because we do not advertise" ... On the merits, André Eggen embodies the most radical fringe of creationists, for whom the creation of the Earth date of "between 10,000 and 200,000 years" and is for a period of "six days plus or minus 24 hours". But what about the carbon-14 dating? "It does not work, because to be able to date, you need a reference is like a burning candle, you must know the length, in the beginning. "And the dinosaurs? "I do not question their existence, but they are said to date back 65 million years, and it is not possible that they remained intact all this time. " To denounce the theory of evolution, André Eggen is based on the errors that can be committed by extrapolating from observations. Look at the size of humans during adolescence: "If the extrapolation were valid, it would measure ten feet to thirty years. "In the room the people approve. Finally, the big piece, it is the fossils. "Darwin said that if we do not find any intermediate forms his theory is called into question ..." And André Eggen, the famous fossils are absent in the meeting. Waves in lNRA Always calm and affable, André Eggen is not the kind of excited to campaign for a teaching of creationism in schools. Instead, he is quietly confident that "it would be taught in an even more serious scientific method, for the tomb of evolution itself." Following his work on the genome of the cow, a forum entitled "A Creationist French to honor" was published in Liberation. André Eggen is sincerely sorry, because "they make an association between my work and my private life." His colleagues at INRA are shared. Some worried about the credibility of their institution, while others provide support for Andre: "I have colleagues who do not share my beliefs, but I talk to them without problems. "In terms of INRA, nothing official, but a silent embarrassment," The hierarchy would like me to stop my sideline, but they do not tell me directly. "Today, if André Eggen was laid off from public research organization to work in a private company, it has nothing to do with the recent turmoil, he swears," It I have just one opportunity elsewhere. " As for the paradox that there would be to decipher the genome of the cow while being convinced that it was created as such by God six thousand years ago, the researcher does not see any contradiction: "I base on what we see today, and it is not the same as in the past to extrapolate. " Whatever one thinks of the biblical convictions André Eggen, we must recognize that he has guts to stand quietly as the general pressure ... A. F. Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Charlie Hebdo

and link (scroll down just a bit)

[Adar]

But then I haven't compared the original theory by Darwin to the modern theory of evolution, so this is just speculation.

I read On the origin of species a quite long time ago and I am a biotechnician.

Claiming "right" or "wrong" about the book is hopeless because Darwin was working in an era were we didn't even know of the existance of "genes" or "DNA". So to explain some about the historical context of Darwins theory.

What people already knew
Since the mid 18th century geologists had been accumulating evidence of earth being more than 6000 years old. Vulcanic rocks in no-volcanic areas, a greater understanding of sedimentation and the existance of ancient sea bed on dry land convinced both scientists and much of the public that earth was more than 6000 years old. This was not very controversial in most nations at this time because it wasn't percieved as challenge the perception of mankind being chosen by god.

You can read more about this on wikipedia

Paleontology became extremely popular in the the late 18th century and revealed that life on earth in pre-historic times must have been very different compared to how it was on earth in the 19th century. The mechanisms behind how life had evolved over the centuries were however unknown, one of the most wellknown explanations at the time was Lamarckism.

So as you can see, it was already known by the time Darwin published his thesis that the earth was old and that the nature of life on earth had evolved during this time.

What Darwin actually did
Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace who proposed the same theory) did not discover evolution. What they did with their joint presentation On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection was that they proposed a mechanism for how evolution occurred.

On the origins of species by the means of natural selection is famous because in the book he compiled empirical evidence in a way that people could read and understand. Unlike previous books like Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation he made this publication under his own name, used better evidence and also combined it with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution (that each individual is fixed in it's traits but that the combination of sexual mating and some random factor could lead to the creation of new traits, the individuals with the best traits are then more likely to get a large number of offspring and isolation then turns this into new species).

[Phier]

I'd be curious to hear what he says about wisdom teeth. (An argument for evolution which I've always liked.)

Actually wisdom teeth is not a good argument about evolution in that its only been in very recent times that wisdom teeth have become an problem, more due to diet than anything else.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Phier I think he is referring to the reported cases of people being born with fewer than 4 wisdom teeth, some have even been born with none.

[alexanderswift]

Actually wisdom teeth is not a good argument about evolution in that its only been in very recent times that wisdom teeth have become an problem, more due to diet than anything else.

Exactly, our diet changed so our jaws became smaller, the extra teeth no longer fit, and now people are being born without any because they are no longer needed.


People had something before because it was needed then and the general standard of living changed and it became unnecessary so now people are being born without it.

I can't say I'm an expert, I just think its a good argument.

[Phier]

No our jaws are not smaller this is a myth out there. Our diet changed and our teeth became bigger due to better nutrition and they wear down less due to softer foods.

Go back a few 100 years and wisdom teeth were not nearly the issue they are today, and our jaws are not smaller, if anything they are BIGGER due to our greater stature with our high protein diets.

Phier I think he is referring to the reported cases of people being born with fewer than 4 wisdom teeth, some have even been born with none.

This is really unrelated. Wisdom teeth are the most common missing teeth, but so are second premolars and lateral incisors commonly missing (for the same reasons). This is more due to the genetics of tooth formation than evolution. Tooth formation patterns are VERY VERY conserved genetically, you can tell instantly if a jaw is hominid or not based on the teeth. When teeth form the first tooth of a class seems to almost always form, the second, usually, and the third has a good chance of not forming. Its more due to a chemical gradient of some kind (we are not 100% sure). Some people are also born with extra wisdom teeth, this has NEVER been a normal hominid condition, but instead of too little they seem to get too much.

Understanding teeth is very important for paleontology as teeth survive better than any other tissue. One of the creationist jokes is that a biologist finds a tooth and reconstructs the entire animal. Ironically thats not far from the truth as you can usually tell the type of animal right away, what its diet was in general, and an approximate age at death.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Good points once again Phier, unfortunately, I am all out of Rep for today.

[Himster]

Regularly biting your cheek is a good example of very very poor design.
How divine do you feel when you were so excited about eating a piece of pasta that you literally ate through your own face?

[Boustrophedon]

Regularly biting your cheek is a good example of very very poor design.
How divine do you feel when you were so excited about eating a piece of pasta that you literally ate through your own face?

Please tell me this is a joke

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Please tell me this is a joke

How would it be a joke? Surely an omniscient god would foresee that.

[Boustrophedon]

maybe I didn't quite get what he was saying... nvm

[Himster]

maybe I didn't quite get what he was saying... nvm

If I were to design a machine that occasionally destroys a part of itself for no reason: that would be a massive design flaw, it would also prove that I'm an idiot.

What does it say about this hypothetical god character?

[Don in the North]

"evolution is mathematicly impossible"
utter rubbish.
utter.
rubbish.

TR's debating style has taken a turn for the worse. this is no longer debating but kindergarten sand slinging on his part

[Nyxos]

"evolution is mathematicly impossible"
utter rubbish.
utter.
rubbish.

TR's debating style has taken a turn for the worse. this is no longer debating but kindergarten sand slinging on his part

especially that he doesn't know ANYTHING about math, which makes his statement all the more ridiculous.