"I really don't see why this is anybody's business outside of Dixie County - why it is the business of someone who does not pay taxes here, who does not live here, who does not intend to ever live here," said county coordinator Arthur Bellot. "We did not invite this. It was something private individuals did for the county."Yet another example of illiteracy: this time legal, rather than grammatical. It has no legal bearing on the matter if I move to a county full of Klansmen, [and apparently, that wouldn't be too hard to do around here] then erect a statue to Nathan Forrest in front of the county courthouse, and cite how "everyone in the county wants it, what business is it of anyone else's?". Or a county of Muslims and erect a statue to Allah. It is completely irrelevant to the legality of any action to fallaciously appeal to argumentum ad populum -- rule of the majority. If people can ever grasp this, all of the frivolity of such lawsuits need not occur. Erect the monument on someone's front lawn, some churchyard, whatever. Just not on government property!
I would advise anyone seriously interested in the arguments of proponents of 10 Commandments on government property to read this and this. Unfortunately, I didn't get to go into these sorts of things in my recent interview.** I want to post a clarification about why I responded to Sean with, "No," when asked "how far I want[ed] to take it" -- removing God from the Dec. of Independence, etc. I've caught some flak for it, although I don't really understand why.
Stay tuned and I'll keep you constantly informed about this developing situation.
*See the first Gainesville Sun article, and this and this Alligator mention.
**You can now download the .flv file (13.6 MB) of my YouTube clip. You will need Martjin Devisser's .flv player (you can save Flash movies to your desktop and play them there) here, or here to view it.
________________
Technorati tags: Church-state, God, Religion
It is my understanding that DNA and RNA are required to build a one cell animal. To me, if that is so, then DNA is the Master Plan. If Amino Acids combined to make a one cell animal, then amino acids (non-living) made the master plan for life on this planet. If life came only from amino acids, then we should have the current double helix, a single helix, and a triple helix, etc., and some would not have any DNA at all.
ReplyDeleteaugury,
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not mind discussing abiogenesis, I have to wonder -- why did you post this comment on this post, which had nothing to do with science?
It is my understanding that DNA and RNA are required to build a one cell animal.
No. They are simply the way that extant life forms, excepting viruses, are "built" now. The earliest life forms did not have the "molecular biology creed"
DNA -> RNA -> protein
There are a number of plausible scenarios by which life arose that do not involve some idea of "irreducibility":
i) TalkOrigins LINK
ii) Model by Lindahl LINK
iii) A few papers on homochirality and the spontaneous generation of nucleic acids LINK
To me, if that is so, then DNA is the Master Plan.
It sounds as if you are already deciding that life was "predetermined" or unavoidable. That is simply untrue. The idea of a "Plan" belies any semblence to molecular understanding. Chemistry is not about "goals" or "plans", and life arose because of stochastic processes streamlined by the laws of physics and chemistry which may have happened a million other ways, or not happened at all.
If Amino Acids combined to make a one cell animal, then amino acids (non-living) made the master plan for life on this planet.
Plan = "encoded information for building"; that is not the case with respect to chemistry. These molecules don't "know" what they're doing, nor are they directed by some sort of precise plan -- that is why evolution occurs: life is subject to the randomness inherent in chemical equilibria and reactions.
If life came only from amino acids, then we should have the current double helix, a single helix, and a triple helix, etc., and some would not have any DNA at all.
? You seem to have just contradicted yourself -- no one claims that "only" applies to abiogenesis. Metabolism and replication are two entirely distinct entities that rely upon proteins AND nucleic acids in various ways.
Have you ever looked at DNA? There are a few conformations of it -- A, B and Z. Under certain conditions, it spontaneously will form a triple strand, and it will form a single strand. However, under the conditions found inside cells, DNA exists (almost entirely) in the B form. So, basically, if life had evolved under different conditions, then the Z form *would* be what we'd observe (and the occasional triple strand)...it's not that life *had* to be the way it is. It just *is* the way it is on *our* planet at *this* time.