Funny thing about scientific evidence, it doesn’t go away. After a century of playing whack-a-mole with Lamarckians, the evolutionist’s worst nightmare keeps reoccurring. Like Bill Murray forever waking up to I Got You Babe by Sonny and Cher, evolutionists are continually reminded that the science isn’t going anywhere soon.
Of course one trick, after rejecting Lamarckism for a century, is to appropriate it and say you knew it all along, as evolutionists did with Paul Kammerer. After driving him to suicide they then realized he was right and so called him an evolutionist. With friends like that who needs enemies?
The dumbest trick is to just deny the whole thing and keep shouting “(and again, it’s NOT Lamarckism!),” like Lutheran PZ Myers does.
But the best trick is to rename it and hope they’ll forget about the whole thing, like this paper does. Let’s just call it “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance” OK?
Whatever happened to those random mutations that “occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses,” as heir to the throne Julian Huxley so dogmatically put it?
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This might interest you Dr. Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThe face of a frog: Time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen bioelectric pattern - July 2011
Excerpt: For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, "When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,",,, "We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper.",,,
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-before-seen.html
further note:
Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion
But the best trick is to rename it and hope they’ll forget about the whole thing, like this paper does. Let’s just call it “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance” OK?
ReplyDeleteIt’s hardly been forgotten. The linked review:
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: More questions than answers, by Lucia Daxinger and Emma Whitelaw
is actually a bit dated, as a Google Scholar or a PubMed search will discover.
When he jeeringly says,
Whatever happened to those random mutations that “occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses,” as heir to the throne Julian Huxley so dogmatically put it?
Dr Hunter is displaying ignorance of the various mechanisms of epigenetics, all of which derive ultimately from mindless genetic mutations. (Bearing in mind, of course, that THE DESIGNER has been free to insert its nano-tweezers into the mix at any time to achieve its holy purposes - as I jeeringly say.)
CH, perhaps you should have read past the title of that review paper. In the abstract, they state
ReplyDelete"Together, these findings suggest that an environmental event in one generation could affect the phenotype in subsequent generations, and these somewhat Lamarckian ideas are stimulating interest from a broad spectrum of biologists, from ecologists to health workers."
Hardly sweeping Lamarck under the rug, wouldn't you say?
Pedant:
ReplyDelete"Dr Hunter is displaying ignorance of the various mechanisms of epigenetics, all of which derive ultimately from mindless genetic mutations."
===
The only ignorance being purposely displayed here is the deliberate attempt to ignore the consequences of your own imperfect erroneous actions. One can only imagine the horrors you've passed on to your descendants with all this anger and bitterness of a cantankerous old retiree.
Here, perhaps you should watch the 1 hour documentary of a group of scientifism heretics who've shown that the principle behind Jeremiah 31:29 are indeed a FACT. Perhaps at least your attitude will change for the better, at least for those who are forced to live around your presence.
"The Ghost In Your Genes"
-----
BA77:
"Getting Over the Code Delusion"
====
This almost sounds like a good title for a science fiction book on what the local crackpot ideologues spin the definition of a code or information should be. LOL
Interesting read BTW
Nanobot:
ReplyDelete"CH, perhaps you should have read past the title of that review paper. In the abstract, they state
"Together, these findings suggest that an environmental event in one generation could affect the phenotype in subsequent generations, and these somewhat Lamarckian ideas are stimulating interest from a broad spectrum of biologists, from ecologists to health workers."
====
And yet in the past 100 years, harmful environmental disasters the effect the genes of all life on Earth have been caused by Human error. In particular the abuse and misuse of Science.
"The Disappearing Male"
There was an earlier documentary done in 1993 called "Assault on the Male" which focused more on the natural world and the global extinction phenomena going on presently as a result of scientific inventions like Bisphenol-A, Nonylphenol and others. The misguided choices made as a result of greed and selfishness of global corporations and the scientists they employ are what is responsible. They have known full well the consequences of their products and have lied and covered these up. Only tough investigation and lawsuits have forced these entities to admit anything. Hmmmmmmmm, this almost mirrors the present topic about lying cheating and cover up..
Back in the 1980s Theo Colborn and other researchers[all evolutionists btw) warned the scientific community of the dangers of this misuse and abuse of science. They were branded extremist heretics just like Marcus Pembrey. Why ??? Because the damning evidence that the principles found at Jeremiah 31:29, Ezekiel 18:2, Lamentations 7:5 and Exodus 34:6-8 have in these later times been actually revealed by science itself and those who run evolutionary thinking are furious with the implications.
Yet despite the historical evidence of this misuse and abuse of science causing extinctions globally, in 2009, Evolutionary Ideologues everywhere were promoting on all the blogs, websites and journals just how wonderful and natural Homosexuality is because it can be found everywhere in nature. Yes of course it is found everywhere in nature. This was warned about by researchers in the 1980s. Why ??? Because the actual FACTS minus the ideological take is that it is a perversion of the DNA and the rest of the natural world. It's caused increase is yet again HUMAN ERROR & IMPERFECTION made possible by the lousy choices of imperfect human beings which inadvertantly effect not only ourselves, but that effect all living organisms found in nature.
This hits hard at the hardcore reasons behind the push of the Evolutionary Doctrine and Dogma>>> Resentment of Accountability and definitions of morality. Should take a good several months of reading and digesting if you are conscientious enough to honestly learn something about it. If it helps encourage you any, one of your holymen wrote the forward for the book >>> Al Gore!
Here's the online book and massive library of research work that has been around since 1996 and continuing.
"Our Stolen Future"
Monsanto and other GMO companies are yet another Human Errored environmental factor, but this has been mentioned before to no avail.
Yet despite the historical evidence of this misuse and abuse of science causing extinctions globally, in 2009, Evolutionary Ideologues everywhere were promoting on all the blogs, websites and journals just how wonderful and natural Homosexuality is because it can be found everywhere in nature. Yes of course it is found everywhere in nature. This was warned about by researchers in the 1980s. Why ??? Because the actual FACTS minus the ideological take is that it is a perversion of the DNA and the rest of the natural world. It's caused increase is yet again HUMAN ERROR & IMPERFECTION made possible by the lousy choices of imperfect human beings which inadvertantly effect not only ourselves, but that effect all living organisms found in nature.
ReplyDeleteAaah, I see now. Eocene is actually a self-loathing gay man.
That explains a lot of his vulgar ranting actually.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Aaah, I see now. Eocene is actually a self-loathing gay man."
===
I appreciate you may have a personal interest here, but that is not what the science has revealed. Human error once again is the underlying problem with with the downwards spiral of the health of life on Earth. The fact that you may have been personally effected may well be the fault of your ancestor's poor choices in life or the choices forced upon them by other humans.
God I love the way science is revealing the truth in these later times. Everyone should count on things getting angrier as time and research move along.
*smile*
bornagain77, very enjoyable articles... thanks for posting.
ReplyDeleteI'd recommend them to all... here they are again:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-before-seen.html
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion
Evolutionists have "some splaining to do". Let's keep their feet to the fire of the facts.
Cornelius Hunter: The dumbest trick is to just deny the whole thing and keep shouting “(and again, it’s NOT Lamarckism!),” like Lutheran PZ Myers does.
ReplyDeleteEpigenetics is not Larmarkianism. Epigenetics is an observed phenomena, but it's not certain that epigenetics results in any permanent change to the genome. At this point, epigenetics appears to be a type of transgenerational phenotypic plasticity. It's still an active field of study, though.
Eocene, I understand that lots of gay men like yourself are terribly conflicted between your church teachings and your sexuality. Fighting it only makes it worse. Come out of the closet, stop being so angry and bitter.
ReplyDeleteCH said...
ReplyDeleteBut the best trick is to rename it and hope they’ll forget about the whole thing, like this paper does. Let’s just call it “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance” OK?
Maybe one of the ID 'scientists' here can give us the details of the ID explanation for this phenomenon.
Heck, at this point I'd settle for ANY details about ANY part of the ID process. IDiots love to scream that mainstream science doesn't know all the details of evolution, but ID doesn't know ANY of the details of 'Design'.
The article in the New Atlantis should leave evolutionists here like deer in the headlights. Even Dawkins is quoted as referring to DNA as a code... something that several evolutionists on this blog apparently still have a hard time accepting. The Chimp/human comparison is pretty much a hyped fairy tale that is quickly going the way of Junk DNA. Junk DNA is far from junk... It seems like evolutionists are wrong on nearly everything they say.
ReplyDeleteCH: The dumbest trick is to just deny the whole thing and keep shouting “(and again, it’s NOT Lamarckism!),” like Lutheran PZ Myers does.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like ID proponents who not only keep claiming not only that transitional fossils do not exist before the Cambrian, but absolutely no transitional fossils exist, period? This would include those ID proponents found in the film Darwin's Dilemma.
CH: Whatever happened to those random mutations that “occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses,” as heir to the throne Julian Huxley so dogmatically put it?
It's being absorbed into a greater theory of the knowledge creation, along with the scientific method.
Specifically, the genome is a biological replicator, which contains the knowledge necessary to cause it's environment (including the organism, and any epigenetic factors) to replicate it.
Again, Neo-Darwinism is an explanation of the creation of knowledge found in the genome. What the referenced paper seems to suggest is that there are factors that change how this knowledge is expressed, and these factors can be passed on to future generations. But there is no conceived theory as to how these factors represent a new theory of knowledge creation. Nor does it somehow falsify the existing explanation of knowledge creation found in the genome presented in Neo-Darwinism.
In other words, this post is merely more hand waving over Evolutionists not expecting X or that they didn't expect Y, rather than falsifying Neo-Dariwnism.
Again, as an analogy, Einstein's theory of general relatively assumes that space-time cures in the presence of mass not just as theoretical instrumentalist model, but as an description of how things *are* in reality. As such, the discovery of some material or force that somehow alters the apparent mass of an object would effect the outcome of what we'd experience, in reality, while still not falsifying GR.
Why is Neo-Darwinism any different?
As such, your reaction to the paper suggests you're still evaluating predictions of evolutionary theory as an instrumentalist or as if they were prophecy. So, which is it? If you deny either of these interpolations, then what else are we supposed to conclude?
There is little difference between having a divine-revelation shaped hole in one's scheme of things and believing that divine-revelation is a valid means of justifying conclusions.
I wrote: But there is no conceived theory as to how these factors represent a new theory of knowledge creation. Nor does it somehow falsify the existing explanation of knowledge creation found in the genome presented in Neo-Darwinism.
ReplyDeleteIn case it's not clear, Lamarckism was the theory that the ancestors of Giraffes stretching their necks somehow created the knowledge of how to build longer necks. Somehow, this knowledge was permanently passed on to it's offspring and result in longer necks found in Giraffes. A Blacksmith somehow created the knowledge to build stronger arms while working metal would somehow pass that on to his offspring, resulting in permeant phenotype changes, etc. In addition, Lamarckism also added a hint of spontaneous creation, which was common in those days, in that smaller and simpler animals were thought to have appeared spontaneously to get the process started. This included mice spontaneously appearing out of piles of rags, etc. How the knowledge to build a mouse was spontaneously created is simply not addressed.
In other words, neither of these things are described in the paper Cornelius referenced.
Scott said, "Again, Neo-Darwinism is an explanation of the creation of knowledge found in the genome."
ReplyDelete--
Seriously? This is coming from the same folks that said 95% of the genome was Junk? That certainly dispelled any wavering confidence I had in them! LOL
How is neo-Darwinism an explanation when evolutionists missed the function of nearly the entire genome? They are going to tell us it's origin? LOL
Neal: Seriously? This is coming from the same folks that said 95% of the genome was Junk? That certainly dispelled any wavering confidence I had in them! LOL
ReplyDeleteAnd we all know God dons't create Junk!
But this seems to be an assumption about what God would or would not do. Why wouldn't God create non-functional DNA? According to Cornelius, for all we know God was being "creative" and though the sequence looked pretty. Right?
Oh wait, that's one of the things that Theological naturalism…. err you mean, Natural Theology, assumes that God wouldn't do. Right? Otherwise, why assume anything at all?
Seems to me you're extrapolating observation by first putting them into an theological framework.
Neal: How is neo-Darwinism an explanation when evolutionists missed the function of nearly the entire genome? They are going to tell us it's origin? LOL
Not identifying exactly which parts of the genome contains knowledge of how to create an organism isn't the same as falsifying the theory of how that knowledge was created. Nor was Junk DNA ever claimed to be universally non-functional. Of course, we've been over this before, so apparently you've bound and determined to remain ignorant (refuse to correct your error)
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteThe article in the New Atlantis should leave evolutionists here like deer in the headlights. Even Dawkins is quoted as referring to DNA as a code... something that several evolutionists on this blog apparently still have a hard time accepting.
Of course it's a code you idiot - it represents a mapping of discrete inputs to discrete outputs. It's just not an abstract code, something you idiots have a hard time accepting or even understanding.
Thorton, you don't understand. The electromagnetic spectrum of starlight is a code for the star's chemical composition. Therefore Jesus. Don't you see?
ReplyDeleteScott, the problem was evolutionists jumping on the junk bandwagon because of flawed Darwinian assumptions. The claim that Junk DNA was not claimed to be universally non-functional is an attempt at correction. You guys can't climb out of this one so easy since you already pegged the claim to the name itself (Junk-DNA). Further silly justification that it's Junk in the sense of "Junk-Drawer" or "Junk-Yard" just digs your hole deeper. Your comments still seem about 5 years behind on current understanding of non-coding DNA. Superstitions die hard. Anyone make an attempt at contacting all the biology dictionary writers so that they can correct their definition of junk-dna to fit yours?
ReplyDeleteIntelligent design theorists and creationists did make a prediction (accurate one) that purpose would be found for a good portion of the noncoding DNA.
How that squares with Cornelius, I'm not sure. Perhaps he could explain.
My view is that research need not to be shackled by the narrow and prison like view that evolutionists take regarding purpose. Anything that falls outside their very narrow parameters is stamped with a label that fits their evolutionary assumptions. That's how they got their Junk-DNA propaganda.
There so paranoid about proving their theory that they'll jump on anything to create some positive front page hype. Of course, the correction is found on page 17D.
My point was that the evolutionists ignorance of the genome is incompatible with what you are saying about it being an "explanation for the creation of knowledge found in the genome". All you have is an assumption that evolution is a fact and a some weak hypothesis about mechanisms.
Neal Tedford:
ReplyDeleteScott, the problem was evolutionists jumping on the junk bandwagon because of flawed Darwinian assumptions.
Really? From what Darwinian assumptions follows the prediction of junk DNA?
In reality, the presence of junk DNA was simply inferred from observations such as (1) most DNA is non-protein-coding, (2) DNA contains lots of broken retroviral and transposon sequences, (3) closely related species sometimes have huge differences in genome size.
The conclusion that a lot of DNA is non-functional "junk" still appears to be valid, despite your assertions to the contrary.
What Darwinian assumptions does it take to conclude that much DNA is non-functional?
And how does it follow logically from creationism/ID that a function would be found for a "good portion" of junk DNA?
Neal: Scott, the problem was evolutionists jumping on the junk bandwagon because of flawed Darwinian assumptions.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if one assumes that God likes making beautiful things, and an infinte God could find beauty in a non-functional DNA strand then one could also jump on the "junk bandwagon" due to "flawed infinate God assumptions"
Or to paraphrase Cornelius, who's to say God wouldn't create a world with non-functioning DNA?
I have items that would meet the definition of junk that I keep for sentimental reasons. I'm in no way offended by this because I know they actually meet the definition. Some items still function, but are very outdated and no longer supported. Others no longer work, but could be used for other purposes.
In other words, your simply not presenting a comprehensive and coherent objection. So what else are we to conclude, other than you're merely offended by the idea of God making junk?
Troy, junk-dna fit nicely into the Darwinist perception of nature being a a claptrap collection of inefficiencies and misfits. It was also used as a point against a designer (Miller, etc)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal: Scott, the problem was evolutionists jumping on the junk bandwagon because of flawed Darwinian assumptions.
ReplyDeleteI'd also point out that Neal seems to think we should patently ignore what are best practices for creating knowledge. In fact, it's unclear how Neal could expect us to any thing but employ best practices. Apparently, Neal has some hidden method by which he can do just this.
Why don't you enlighten us, Neal? You'd probably get the Nobel Prize. Wouldn't have anything to do with, say, divine revelation, would it?
In the case of DNA, best practices require us to start with aspects that have the most direct influence in expressing proteins. This would be coding DNA. Once we make significant progress here, then we move on to determine how significantly more indirect processes come into play.
Better questions lead to better answers, which lead to even better questions and even better answers, etc. This is precisely what we'd expect from the process of creating knowledge.
An analogy would be to first check if there was enough hydraulic fluid in the master reservoir before disassembling the entire slave cylinder in a manual transmission.
Again this is entry level problem solving skills, which apply regardless of the subject matter. Apparently, Neal is isn't really interested in solving the problem in the first place, think's it's already solved or is clueless when it come to problem solving.
Or perhaps Neal is appealing to special pleading, since he thinks everything knowable aways "just was", rather than having being created at all. However, from the perspective of providing an explanation, one could more economically say that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build each species.
In other words, it would seem that Neal, Cornelius, etc. are making rather specific assumptions about how the knowledge in the genome was created, or the lack their off. Of course, if we're lucky, Cornelius will trot out the old chestnut - "we do not have enough information to know how the knowledge was created" in the case of the biological complexity we observe. At which point, he's admitted to merely pushing the problem to some unexplainable realm, rather than having solved it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete