Real Science Friday: Stars in Galaxy Bulges "Look Too Perfect"

[Jefferson]

Stars in Galaxy Bulges "Look Too Perfect"

This is the show from Friday, April 6th 2012.

SUMMARY:

Spoiler

* Creation Magazine on Astronomy, Acid, Atheists, Sonar, and Pigs: Real Science Friday co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the Spring 2012 edition of Creation magazine!

* "Surprisingly Orderly" Star Clusters in Spiral Galaxies: Those who believe in naturalist origins are forever dismayed or even shocked by the latest discoveries because scientific observations typically contradict the fundamental predictions of atheistic origins. (One small example: Most animals reproduce sexually, yet Darwinism would never predict sexual reproduction.) Thus while the Big Bang model predicted that the bulge of stars in the center of spiral galaxies resulted from millions of years of collisions, as reported in Creation magazine and in the New Scientist article, Galaxies too good to be true, Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles admitted that, "It's really an embarrassment." And cosmologist John Kormendy says that the prinstine bulges "were something of a shock" and "look rather too perfect." To which Bob and Fred say and about which Spike Psarris created the greatest astronomy DVDs ever made (Vol. I & Vol. II).

Get the Spike Psarris video What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy
and his great Vol. II, on Our Created Stars and Galaxies!

* And for Good Measure: Venus rotates backwards, "Hot Jupiter" gas giants exist near their suns, and some exoplanets orbit their stars backwards!

* Life Uses Left-Handed Amino Acids: The amino acids in "Dinosaur-era" fossils still have not racemized to their 50-50 mixture. And even if evolution could segregate out just left-handed acids, it must get them in the right order, and then somehow fold them correctly, and if all that happened, you'd still have only one dead protein.



* Dutch Reverands are Atheists Dodging the Death Vans: One out of six ministers in Holland are atheist or agnostic, and many of the elderly there are afraid of being euthanized, and now, the country is launching a fleet of mobile euthanasia vans to bring back housecalls for that personal touch!

[Knock knock.] "Hi. We're from the government. We heard that you might be lonely."

"Well, yes, I am a bit lonely. Would you be my friend?"

"Well, not exactly. But we'll be happy to kill you."

The guys also talk about the current issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics that advocates for the legalization of infanticide so that parents can kill their newborn babies in the first months of life.

* Dolphin Sonar & Honey Bees Beat Super Computers: Dolphins can see a tennis ball 260 feet.away and, as we've discussed previously, honey bees can solve enormously complex mathematical problems far more quickly than can a super computer, and using only a millionth of the energy.



* FIND OUT WHO KNOWS WHY PIGS WALLOW IN MUD: Do Darwinist scientists, or the hosts of Real Science Friday, have a better explanation of why pigs wallow in mud? And in a related story, why does your tile countertop feel cooler than your wooden table?

Today’s Resource: Get the stunning Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy and his great Vol. II about Our Created Stars and Galaxies! And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine!

 

[The Barbarian]

(One small example: Most animals reproduce sexually, yet Darwinism would never predict sexual reproduction.)

In fact, Darwinian theory can accurately predict which sorts of organisms will reproduce asexually.

Turns out, asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases. For the rest of us, sexual reproduction works better to spread new resistance strategies and to keep old ones handy for future use.

 

[Sherman]

My husband is now hooked on this show. He went to kgov.com yesterday and listened to this show.

 

[Jukia]

My husband is now hooked on this show. He went to kgov.com yesterday and listened to this show.

Lost a few IQ points doing that I'll bet

 

[Stripe]

In fact, Darwinian theory can accurately predict which sorts of organisms will reproduce asexually. Turns out, asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases. For the rest of us, sexual reproduction works better to spread new resistance strategies and to keep old ones handy for future use.

Or else asexual reproduction means greater resistance to parasites and disease. Sounds like the evolutionists have reversed another causitive relationship in order to invent more flawed evidence. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Or else asexual reproduction means greater resistance to parasites and disease.

No. For example, you see that trend in reptiles. Whiptail lizards, for example.

Sounds like the evolutionists have reversed another causitive relationship in order to invent more flawed evidence.

It's testable. Whiptail species include asexual and sexual ones. The advantage in being asexual, is twice as many of your genes get reproduced. The downside is a lack of genetic diversity, which makes a population more vulnerable to parasites and disease.

The "hybrid vigor" of animal breeders is an example of that effect. Likewise, monocultures of asexually reproducing organisms, like the Irish potatoes are an example of the downside of asexuality.

As usual, you put your foot in it, Stipe.

 

[Stripe]

No. For example, you see that trend in reptiles. Whiptail lizards, for example.

And now you're actively engaging in the fallacy of correlation equating to causation. Pays to think rationally about your ideas when faced with an alternative. :thumb:

It's testable.

Remember your assertion? Your assertion is that the creatures are this way because darwinian theory predicts it. Telling us again that they are this way is not evidence for your assertion.

Two logical fallacies and counting. :chuckle:

As usual, you put your foot in it, Stipe.

I've said nothing wrong. :idunno:

But this is probably just another attempt at a logical fallacy. Ad hominem, in this case. Are you out to break some kind of record? :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. For example, you see that trend in reptiles. Whiptail lizards, for example. The advantage in being asexual, is twice as many of your genes get reproduced. The downside is a lack of genetic diversity, which makes a population more vulnerable to parasites and disease.

And now you're actively engaging in the fallacy of correlation equating to causation.

Nope. It's been directly observed to be that way. The Irish potato famine was caused by this effect. One strain, asexually reproduced by cutting and planting "eyes", had become all there was, because it was so productive. One pathogen wiped all of it out.

That's how it works, Stipe.

Pays to think rationally about your ideas when faced with an alternative.

"Rational" would be looking at the real world instead of depending on your imagination.

It's testable.

Remember your assertion? Your assertion is that the creatures are this way because darwinian theory predicts it.

No. Darwinian theory predicts it, because the theory is an accurate description of the real world. And now you're actively engaging in the fallacy of correlation equating to causation.

Two logical fallacies and counting.

Barbarian chuckles:
As usual, you put your foot in it, Stipe.

I've said nothing wrong.

You've done the usual creationist thing about "reality can't be that way, because it doesn't fit my beliefs."

But this is probably just another attempt at a logical fallacy. Ad hominem, in this case. Are you out to break some kind of record?

Isn't that statement an ad hominen, Stipe? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

That's how it works

Telling us again how it works is not evidence for your assertion.

Learn some logic. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

And Stipe, having been blindsided once again by evidence, retreats to a content-free assertion.

It's the creationist way.

 

[Granite]

In fact, Darwinian theory can accurately predict which sorts of organisms will reproduce asexually.

Turns out, asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases. For the rest of us, sexual reproduction works better to spread new resistance strategies and to keep old ones handy for future use.

It's as if they think everything about evolutionary theory, thinking, and research ended when Darwin died. They literally can't think of Darwin or his work in anything less than their own religious terms. It's as if they don't realize how much has changed since 1882 or Origins's publication.

P.S. When Flipper beats Deep Blue at chess, lemme know.

 

[Jukia]

It's as if they think everything about evolutionary theory, thinking, and research ended when Darwin died. They literally can't think of Darwin or his work in anything less than their own religious terms.

Well he did write a big Book.

 

[Stripe]

It's as if they think everything about evolutionary theory, thinking, and research ended when Darwin died. They literally can't think of Darwin or his work in anything less than their own religious terms. It's as if they don't realize how much has changed since 1882 or Origins's publication.

Hi, coward. :wave:

Actually it's like this:
The evolutionist uses darwinian theory to say asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases. The reverse might be true instead. Asexual reproduction might mean greater resistance to parasites and disease.

If you agree there is a causal relationship between those two things, which way do you think it goes and why?

 

[Stripe]

Well he did write a big Book.

Hi, Joke. Care to weigh in on the actual discussion? Or are you just here for comic relief again?

 

[Granite]

Well he did write a big Book.

Funny, but it seems sometimes like creationists take Darwin more seriously than contemporary scienists.

 

[The Barbarian]

The evolutionist uses darwinian theory to say asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases. The reverse might be true instead. Asexual reproduction might mean greater resistance to parasites and disease.

Irish potato famine put the latter theory to rest. Monocultures, which are the results of asexual reproduction, are more vulnerable to parasites and disease.

It's not controversial. Even educated creationists admit the fact.

 

[Stripe]

...asexual reproduction works better for organisms not challenged much by parasites or diseases.

You assumption is that asexual reproduction was selected for by darwinian methods - that organisms are asexual because they are not susceptible to disease. The reverse might be true instead. Organisms are not susceptible to disease because they are asexual.

 

[Yazichestvo]

You assumption is that asexual reproduction was selected for by darwinian methods - that organisms are asexual because they are not susceptible to disease. The reverse might be true instead. Organisms are not susceptible to disease because they are asexual.

Anything *might* be true. Doesn't make it an argument. So far, only Barbarian has given an example to support his case.

I'm very puzzled by your assertion as well, because it's hard for me to imagine sexual reproduction being created by anything other than evolution. The random shuffling and intermixing of alleles from two different specimens seems to serve little purpose, if not to take full advantage of the genetic diversity within a species. What other purpose could it serve?

 

[Stripe]

Anything *might* be true. Doesn't make it an argument. So far, only Barbarian has given an example to support his case.

I read incorrectly the facts Barbarian presented. I don't disagree with them in any case.

What I do disagree with is the assumption of evolution. Barbarian presents the facts with the assumption that evolution produced what we see. It is then inherently irrational to use this explanation as evidence for evolution.

I'm very puzzled by your assertion as well, because it's hard for me to imagine sexual reproduction being created by anything other than evolution.

:chuckle: And it's hard for me to imagine evolution doing it.

The random shuffling and intermixing of alleles from two different specimens seems to serve little purpose, if not to take full advantage of the genetic diversity within a species. What other purpose could it serve?

Probably to take full advantage of the genetic diversity within a kind.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I do disagree with is the assumption of evolution. Barbarian presents the facts with the assumption that evolution produced what we see.

I look at piles of rocks at the bottom of cliffs with the assumption of gravity, too. For the same reasons.

It is then inherently irrational to use this explanation as evidence for evolution.

Only a creationist could consider relying on evidence to be "irrational."