Atheist Bio PHD PZ Meyers does not refute DNA by God concept!

[papau]

Seems the science forum is the new atheist forum - so lets have some fun.


http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/reactions_to_dawkins/#comments

The image of Richard Dawkins is one of an intellectual bully who shouts loudly when his sermon is weak and uses bombastic techniques to sell his books and lecture tours. If so, it is because Dawkins is not well versed in science, specifically mathematics and biochemistry, and misses the point. Evolution is easily supported with fossil records. The trouble with it is the use of the term "random" to describe the chance construction of the molecules of life. After Earth cooled enough to allow life to begin over 3 billion years ago, it is presumed to have been in the form of cyanobacteria found in strobilus fossils that produced oxygen that made future evolution, as we know it, a possibility. Obviously, this means that DNA was already present as soon as the world was cool enough to allow water to exist. There is reason to believe that it formed the basis of human DNA and that it has always had the capability to produce higher forms of life. This is why some medical opinion favors the thought that the human embryo and fetus must pass through primitive stages, including fish and reptiles, to develop into a baby from a DNA molecule with a long history. For example, any developmental anatomy book will carry proof that the 4- to 5-month-old fetus has gills and some people are born with tails. The important point, however, is that if life-giving DNA was present at the very start of the Archaean Age, how did this happen? This is not a simple high school acid-base experiment, and a look into the biochemistry of the cell should convince anyone that it was not accidental. This is a result of constructing an incredibly complex system of amino acids in precise order, and the concept of "random" is simply not credible. I thought that after the 1980s, when it was shown that this was beyond mathematical probability, that most responsible scientists have avoided using the term. While "intelligent design" is a term objectionable to evolutionists, they have no viable alternative.
James N. Greene
Mount Vernon, Missouri

PZ's only comment: "Oh, brother"

Silence implies agreement, and "Oh Brother" implies no scientific response - right?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. No, "Oh, brother" implies no response is necessary

and none would be sufficient for this yahoo, anyway.....

[papau]

14. The site has detailed refutations - why not another one?

It would only have taken a second to note that the math wording was incorrect and that the letter writer should have stuck with "unlikely".

[BlueEyedSon]

22. You think that will change his mind?

:rofl:

[bluerum]

2. The important point, however, is that if you

cannot or are unwilling to support an argument with data you should not randomly or selectively assign causes and correlations and try to pass it off as the truth.

<snip>
This is not a simple high school acid-base experiment, and a look into the biochemistry of the cell should convince anyone that it was not accidental.
</snip>

Why? How? This is non-sensical gibberish - it draws an unsupported conclusion on the source of DNA.

<snip>
This is a result of constructing an incredibly complex system of amino acids in precise order, and the concept of "random" is simply not credible. I thought that after the 1980s, when it was shown that this was beyond mathematical probability, that most responsible scientists have avoided using the term.
</snip>

"Beyond mathematical probability." What does that mean? This is an absurdity. If the concepts of probability and randomness are beyond the understanding of a scientist, or anyone for that matter, then I would regard their analysis of just about anything with deep suspicion.

[papau]

8. As a math type person, I understand where he is coming from - but you

are correct that "not accidental" is not scientific and can not be scientific and indeed Science does not have the tools to prove, or disprove, God.

"Beyond mathematical probability" is indeed poor wooding - but "unlikely" certainly is allowed, isn't it?

[bananas]

3. What makes you think this is "the new atheist forum"?

As far as I know, this is still the Science forum,
and this thread doesn't belong here.

[papau]

7. See below - the DU Moderators inform me this is allowed - and inform me

flamebaiting atheists in the Science forum (I'd suggest a posting of possible direction in science via DNA that was unkind to atheist would be the equivalent - and the moderators tell me that would not be allowed)
=====================================================================

Permited by DU rules (Dear Moderators - not that I am complaining or pushing anything non-scientific or suggesting unkind results that come from science of the future)

phantom power (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-06-06 01:33 PM
Original message
DarkSyde interviews PZ Meyers

PZ: I don't need to preach atheism -- all I need to do is point out the palpable structure of reality in the growing detail science provides for us, and those who are awake and aware will notice the disparity between the world around them and the clumsy, sterile, ludicrous fantasies of religion, and they'll eventually abandon faith. Or, at least, they'll throw away dogma and retire faith to a smaller, private part of their lives.

The Universe: it's the Anti-Religion.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/6/95138/89017



(PS, there's lots of good discussion of his work in evo-devo, aside from his super-hero identity as atheism advocate)

[bananas]

12. The rules don't allow flame-baiting

especially with pseudo-science bullshit:

"Threads about topics that are not science are not welcome here. Please do not post threads about pseudoscience (astrology, homeopathy, crop circles, bigfoot, alien abductions, and the like), which is not science. Don't even post threads bashing pseudoscience, because most people here in the science forum don't need to be convinced, but more importantly because such topics are bait for people to come here and argue the opposing viewpoint -- and then all hell breaks loose. If you want to discuss pseudoscience there are plenty of other places on DU where you can do so. (Visit the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group for discussions from the skeptics-only perspective. Visit the Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing Group for discussions from the mystics-only perspective."

[papau]

15. flame-baiting is -to me - saying smart equals atheist - but that is just

my opinion.

Saying Theist is stupid likewise is flame baiting - in my humble opinion.

"Don't even post threads bashing pseudoscience" seems a good rule.

[bananas]

18. Flame bait is anything trying to start a flame war.

The best way to get rid of flame bait is not to respond to it.
The post you complain about had zero replies.
It would've dropped off the screen by tomorrow.
I really don't want the Science forum to get filled up with religious flame wars (and yes, atheism is a religious belief and is not part of science).

[papau]

19. I agree - but moving a post out of Science has been done - why not

this time?

In any case the good meds are making me feel unhappy about ranting.

So let the mods do whatever they want - I'm happy!

:-)

[moggie]

4. Oh really?

PZ's only comment: "Oh, brother"

That was clearly Phil Dennison, not PZ.

[papau]

5. PZ claims owmerhip - Phil Dennison may well have been the writer, but

"Oh, brother" is at least allowed/endorsed as the comment to the letter BY PZ

[moggie]

9. Show me

"PZ claims owmerhip (sic)": where?
Endorsement by PZ: where?

If you mean "PZ has not deleted this comment", bear in mind that PZ isn't Dembski: he doesn't immediately disappear anything he disagrees with.

Jeez, I can't believe I'm bothering with such a non-issue. I'll drop it now.

[papau]

11. Bye - by the way the "about" says PZ, PZ in the dailyKos posted

interview claims ownership of the site.

I think you made a good decision to leave that argument behind.

My post is a non-issue and not worth much time - except for the fact the Science Forum - has a post by the atheist "phantom power" dumping on Intel Design - so I thought a theist post on the topic was called for.

Sorry for the rant and wasting folks time - but waiving rules for atheist posting gets me a little upset.

The Rule in Science forum is that Intel Design is not discussed - because it is not Science - and that is a good rule. This atheist post on Intel Design got a pass by being viewed as the direction science is taking. As if science could disprove God.

I wish the no postings on Intel Design were enforced.

[bananas]

16. I was annoyed with that post too

but nobody took the flame bait except you - that post has zero replies.

[papau]

17. I think we have identified a need for me to take the evening meds! - you

are correct that I am the only one that was pushed to rant.

Be back with a better personality through chemistry!

:toast:

:-)

[bananas]

20. LOL - don't forget the sci-fi channel season starts tonight!

:toast:

[jody]

6. Letter you cite is just one of over 50 re "The Debate Over Dawkins" as

published in Discover.

Perhaps a more interesting debate would be about the basic article, "Darwin's Rottweiler" in the September 2005 issue of Discover.

[papau]

10. A debate on Dawkins has me defending Dawkins - that's no fun. Indeed

my brother-in-law (PHD Bio and Zoology) and I have had many pleasant discussions on just how well written (and indeed a nice guy) is Dawkins.

I think his religious view incorrect - but then neither Dawkins nor I hold a PHD in religious studies - and indeed religious questions are not something that is decided/won by the more qualified expert witness.

I am just responding to a science forum posting that suggests - by quoting words by PZ - that better science education will mean the end of religion except for the really stupid people.

The DU mods did not see the above as insulting to the religious. So I thought discussing an atheist that concedes DNA by God on his website (or at least allows a letter to go un-refuted) might be an interesting post for the science forum.

[jody]

13. I agree it is an interesting post. n/t

[bemildred]

21. This is babble.

"Obviously, this means that DNA was already present as soon as the world was cool enough to allow water to exist"
"There is reason to believe that it formed the basis of human DNA and that it has always had the capability to produce higher forms of life."
"The important point, however, is that if life-giving DNA was present at the very start of the Archaean Age, how did this happen?"

This is the appearance of reason without the content.

[Skinner]

23. You deliberately posted this to stir the pot...

...because you didn't like my reply to the email you sent me.

Extremely unwise.

Locking.