Ann Coulter on Evolution - 08-24-11

[kallipolis]

She knows it very well but lies like a sidewalk. She's in it for the power and the easy money.

Absolutely, so.

I hope that sooner, rather than later she slips on a banana peel.

 

[Seasoned]

You'd think she'd be a strong proponent considering she evolved from David Coulter to Ann Coulter.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ann_Coulter

 

[hotatlboi]

Coulter knows her subject very well.

Once again, no she does not know the theory of evolution very well.

Never underestimate your opponent with elitist observations that presume to read the mind of those who are very persuasive in persuading their carefully selected audiences.

I'm not presuming anything. Her statement says it all.

She views evolution through the typical creationist viewpoint that it means everything sprang into existence spontaneously. This viewpoint is a result if ignorance of what the theory actually says.

 

[hotatlboi]

She knows it very well but lies like a sidewalk. She's in it for the power and the easy money.

No this is the viewpoint that basically says everything that she is doing is satire and she doesn't really believe any of what she is saying. I don't buy that.

 

[kallipolis]

Once again, no she does not know the theory of evolution very well.



I'm not presuming anything. Her statement says it all.

She views evolution through the typical creationist viewpoint that it means everything sprang into existence spontaneously. This viewpoint is a result if ignorance of what the theory actually says.

It's your interpretation. You presume to know Coulter's mind. Never presume.

 

[T-Rexx]

It would appear that you continue to speculate.

The Gallop poll informs us that 25 pct of Americans do not believe in evolution.

When I argue the matter of Evolutionary Theory, with Creationists I am obliged not to speculate, relying entirely on supportable facts.

Provide me with supportable facts to support your assertions.

The data in the link I posted shows ~40% of Americans do not "believe" in evolution. More than 40% accept the religious doctrine of creationism as truth. More Americans accept "creationism" than accept religion. You choose to ignore that data, perhaps because it does not agree with your personal speculations.

It is okay to be suspicious of data, kalli. Not all data is created equal. Sometimes, your personal speculations will indeed be better than the data that people like me post. But, your personal speculation about the situation here in America does not make for a convincing argument. Your faith in the intelligence of Americans is endearing, but it is wrong. The data simply do not support it.

We're a lot more stupid than you want to believe.

I have several times corresponded with Ken Miller (Kenneth R.Miller) on his take on bacterial flagellum, as proposed by Creationists and he has convinced me that there is no sound basis for believing that Creationists' can provide anything of substance to substantiate their argumentation; even totally meaningless.

Yes, of course the creationist arguments that flagella cannot possibly have resulted from natural selection are absurd.

But, I don't think the creationists will be much persuaded by your impression that this gentleman's (Ken Miller's) authority trumps their "divine" authority.

 

[chrisrobin]

Coming attractions:

Ann Coulter on quantum physics.
Ann Coulter on cosmology.
Ann Coulter on existentialism.
Ann Coulter on the Midland Dialect.
Ann Coulter on the efficacy of heart-lung transplants.

This country is fucked.

 

[hotatlboi]

It's your interpretation. You presume to know Coulter's mind. Never presume.

Once again, I'm not presuming anything. I'm going by what she said.

To presume something is to draw a conclusion in the absence of evidence. We have seen how she views evolution, and that viewpoint betrays her ignorance on it.

 

[bankside]

Negative, that is the case, as evidenced by this quote from Coulter.

She does not know what the theory of evolution is or what it describes.

She thinks of it in the "monkeys with typewriters" terms, which is a common pitfall for many that dismiss it without learning the first thing about it.

hotatlboi, we could never explain evolution to her because she probably already understands it as well as any of us. She does not acknowledge her understanding of it because her ignorant audience is profitable to her and she does not want to upset them when they're about to reach for their wallets.

 

[CowboyBob]

Ann/Dan Coulter says insane things like this to attract attention to herself/himself. She/he wouldn't be able to make the news if she/he spoke like a sane person.

The crazier you are, the more attention you draw to yourself, the more books you sell, the more television appearances you have, the more money you make. You see a lot of this in the Republican party. Demons like Coulter are opportunists who prey on the simple-minded.

Ann/Dan Coulter out for a stroll.​

 

[hotatlboi]

hotatlboi, we could never explain evolution to her because she probably already understands it as well as any of us. She does not acknowledge her understanding of it because her ignorant audience is profitable to her and she does not want to upset them when they're about to reach for their wallets.

Well like I said, that would be the viewpoint that she is really an intelligent satirist who plays dumb to soak up more money. I haven't seen a single solitary thing from her to make be believe that is the case, which distinguishes her from other intelligent satirists. Therefore I see that as unlikely.

It's obvious that she pumps up her inflammatory rhetoric for her audience, but I don't buy that she is really a lot smarter than all of the idiotic things she is saying.

 

[FirmaFan]

evolution and intelligent design aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Evolution is the change in frequency of expressed genetic alleles as a function of time. Whether that is mutually exclusive to intelligent design would depend upon your definition of intelligent design, as there are many. Even amongst cdesign proponentsists, a set definition can not be agreed upon.

 

[bankside]

evolution and intelligent design aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. Evolutionary theory describes changes which come about from natural selection. This means that as creatures struggle to survive in their environments, those better adapted live more easily and leave more, healthier offspring, passing on their successful traits. At the same time, creatures that are awkwardly adapted simply die out more often and leave fewer offspring with any resemblance to their traits.

There is no element of decision-making in it, which is implied by the notion of intelligent design. Evolution is not a designed system or a plan for improvement or anything like that. It is simply the outcome which occurs when the weak die and the strong thrive, in a given environment.

Intelligent design is just the idea of "creationism on autopilot," but that is nothing to do with evolution.

 

[bankside]

couldn't an intelligent designer make the argument of like god as a clockmaker, who created the fundamental ingredients for life and then walked away to let evolution take its course?

Lets take gravity, which is perhaps slightly less controversial.

You could have gravity, which causes a ball to roll down hill. Or you could have intelligent gravity, which causes a ball to roll down hill. Erp?

The argument can be made by intelligent-designists that some sort of god "let evolution take its course" but what that really means is that evolution is a settled question. Evolution, as science describes it, is a done deal. So why do they keep debating it with duck lizards, and frog eyes, and eyes of newt, and whatever other falderal they spew forth?

With evolution out of the way (it's real), where the debate still lies is in the question of how it all started. Creation being one theory, and abiogenesis being another. Science sees no difficulty in self-replicating (living) entities arising out of a non-living chemical soup. Indeed that theory can account for a lot of the evidence we have from the planet's early years.

On the other hand, creation fables don't do much to even show awareness of that evidence, never mind account for it. And the fables themselves suffer from low reliability and the likelihood of being stories told for ordinary social purposes that never really did explain our origins, rather than being plausible ideas contending to explain our beginnings..

 

[FirmaFan]

She just won't stop:

We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record – for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=339845

After 150 years of study, science has refined slightly the theory of whale evolution that Darwin first proposed - If Coulter is too stupid to understand evolution, I am guessing she is too stupid to update her flash player to allow her to play videos from youtube:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY[/ame]

 

[star-warrior]

It seems some of the gallup polls only have around 1000 respondents to the telephone polls. This in itself is a very small sampling size. The US population stands at around 300 million people. Extrapolating such a small sampling size to such a large populations makes me want to question where are those respondents located. If you just choose from bible belt states, perhaps there are more createionism believing respondents than if forexample you polled in non-bible-belt areas.

Perhaps if they polled 1% of the population, it might approach more meaningful results.. But you'd need 30 million telephone calls for that.

 

[hotatlboi]

It seems some of the gallup polls only have around 1000 respondents to the telephone polls. This in itself is a very small sampling size. The US population stands at around 300 million people. Extrapolating such a small sampling size to such a large populations makes me want to question where are those respondents located. If you just choose from bible belt states, perhaps there are more createionism believing respondents than if forexample you polled in non-bible-belt areas.

Perhaps if they polled 1% of the population, it might approach more meaningful results.. But you'd need 30 million telephone calls for that.

That is not correct.

A few hundred/thousand can give a small upper bound on the error, provided the sampling is random.

 

[star-warrior]

Random is peculiar. You can flip a coin many times and it may come up as heads for a long period before it turns into tails. The more you flip, the bigger the sample size and closer to the 50/50 you'd expect. All I'm saying is, if they had a bigger sampling size....

 

[opinterph]

Random is peculiar. You can flip a coin many times and it may come up as heads for a long period before it turns into tails. The more you flip, the bigger the sample size and closer to the 50/50 you'd expect. All I'm saying is, if they had a bigger sampling size....

Random does seems peculiar, but when properly conducted – it provides a reasonably accurate estimation.

The fundamental goal of a survey is to come up with the same results that would have been obtained had every single member of a population been interviewed.

HOW POLLS ARE CONDUCTED
By Frank Newport, Lydia Saad, David Moore from Where America Stands, 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION​

 

[chrisrobin]

I just finished reading the posts starting with #58 and I am both astonished and pleased that a rational exchange between JUBers can happen on a thread that contains the name Ann Coulter. Liked the Ken Miller post also.