Friday, January 27, 2017

About Those Placental Regulatory Genes

Evolution Recruits and Deploys Genes

Last time we noted the teleological ideas and language used to describe the hypothetical evolution of several genes that are expressed for a mere few hours, in the early development stages of many placental mammals. And by early we mean when we consist of only 8-16 cells. The teleology is not a mere slip-up. As we have documented many times, it is a common thread running throughout the genre of evolutionary literature. It is needed to make sense of the data, because evolution doesn’t.

That teleological language appeared in an article about the research. Not too surprisingly, teleological language also appears in the research journal paper as well. To wit:

A small number of lineage-specific tandem gene duplications have occurred, and these raise questions concerning how evolutionarily young homeobox genes are recruited to new regulatory roles. For example, divergent tandem duplicates of the Hox3 gene have been recruited for extra-embryonic membrane specification and patterning in dipteran and lepidopteran insects, a large expansion of the Rhox homeobox gene family is deployed in reproductive tissues of mouse, and duplicates of TALE class genes are expressed in early development of molluscs.

Two of the evolutionists’ favorite words are “recruited” and “deployed.” They sound so active. What better way to obviate the rather awkward problem that, if evolution is true, all biological variation must be random with respect to fitness (a claim which, by the way, has been falsified so many times we stopped counting). Evolutionists nonetheless continue to spread this fake news.

And no teleological idea would be complete with the mandatory infinitive form (“for … specification and patterning”). Religion drives science and it matters.

58 comments:

  1. Please Evolutioninists, counter this or the argument is dead and then what will I do?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice rationale. The evidence is clear for anyone who cares to look .... so they are without excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If all you have against evolution is the sloppy use of language, then your side has little to go on. All humans, even doctors of philosophy, occasionally employ a poor choice of words and phrases to explain something. All that demonstrates is that they are human and not the best writers in the world. Not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with their assumptions and conclusions.

    But, I guess when you support a view like ID, that has no tangible evidence or mechanisms to support it, you have to grasp at all of the straws you can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then it is a good thing that what we have on evolutionism proves that it isn't science.

      OTOH ID has plenty of scientifically verifiable evidence to support it. However, you being an ignorant dolt, don't know how to assess evidence nor do you know how to test the claims of evolutionism.

      Delete
    2. The issue is not really only about the facts ... in general, we all agree on them. It's about which lens we use to interpret them. Ultimately this comes down to a philosophical question ... is 'naturalism' sufficient to interpret the facts and give us a coherent and realistic theory of origins – for NDT solely depends upon "proving" that a naturalist answer is possible. Storytelling, assertions and assumptions are not evidence, but unfortunately that's what we often hear.

      Delete
    3. William,

      "If all you have against evolution is the sloppy use of language, then your side has little to go on."

      Come on, William, I think you will have to admit there is at least a little more than that going for the idea of ID.

      Anyway, I'm off to Jasper for a week to ski. I'll think of you while I'm at Jasper Pizza. :)

      Delete
    4. Hi Nic: "Come on, William, I think you will have to admit there is at least a little more than that going for the idea of ID."

      My comment was centred around the OP, which I think you will agree is not about the science, but about the words used to explain it.

      But, have a great time in Jasper. Have a beer for me at the Jasper Brewing Company.

      Delete
    5. My comment was centred around the OP, which I think you will agree is not about the science,

      There isn't any science behind evolutionism.

      Delete
  4. I would agree with William on this. I'm not sure I understand the rationale of pointing to a form of language and declaring that somehow it is evidence of a Grand Designer. Does Cornelius think that this is some kind of Freudian slip and the writers of this pieces really didn't realize what they were writing? I suspect if we were to interview the authors of these papers and pointed out the language, it's more than likely they would quickly point out that their intent was far from teleological.

    I think Cornelius is looking for ghosts in the cellar when there's really just some creaky floorboards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, blind and mindless processes couldn't account for regulatory networks if the lives of evolutionists depended on it. So that would be a problem and it is very telling that you don't recognize it.

      Delete
    2. CaroleTim, I don't think they do realise it because they are brainwashed by years of evolutionist programming. They have incorporated evolution. It has become an automatic way of thinking.

      Delete
    3. Joke: "Look, blind and mindless processes couldn't account for regulatory networks if the lives of evolutionists depended on it."

      Try to stay on topic Joe.

      Delete
    4. Gene regulation is the topic, duh

      Delete
  5. Cornelius, I don't understand your argument.

    Are you appealing to mere the possibility of using teleological terminology? Or perhaps the fact that teleological terminology was actually used?

    If I wrote "Nature recruits fire to renew and bring vitality to prairie, savannah and forest ecologies.", does that mean I must believe the fires in question were not an act of nature or just fooling myself in believing they are not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was the origin of nature an act of nature? But I digress, what fires show is that nature is so well designed that even the seemingly bad things have a good component. Due to the nitrogen in the atmosphere lightning produces nitrates which then gets washed to the ground as natural fertilizer. Floods gather minerals and nutrients from the dry ground and move them around. Plate tectonics allow science to examine the earth and they recycle material.

      Acts of nature, sure, but still all part of the Intelligent Design.

      Delete
  6. Here's a great example of Darwinian language.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/did_complex_fli103468.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. "There isn't any science behind evolutionism."

    And Joke enters on cue with his "Polly the Parrot" impression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that about sums up the science behind evolutionism.

      Thank you wee willie

      Delete
    2. Maybe we should take this discussion over to TSZ so that we are not cluttering up Cornelius' site.

      Delete
    3. We have already proven that no one at TSZ, especially you, can demonstrate evolutionism has any science behind it. So why bother?

      Oh, that's right, you just want another distraction. As if that is going to fool people...

      Delete
    4. It's a no that you cannot discuss the science of evolutionism because there isn't any science to discuss. You had your chance @ TSZ and you choked, as usual. And now you are in some sort of cowardly damage-control

      Delete
  8. I sense a certain correspondence between the way evolutionists borrow teleological language to express the flaccid non-teleological theory, and the way atheists borrow from the Christian worldview in their attempts to argue against the existence of God. Those familiar with the Transcendental Argument for God will probably get what I mean.

    ~Sean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Addendum: As Greg Bahnsen used to say, in order to slap God in the face, the atheist has to sit in his lap. Likewise, while slapping teleology in the fact, the Darwinist constantly sits in his lap:-)

      ~Sean

      Delete
  9. My car didn't want to start this morning. My phone tried to connect to the wifi but it somehow forgot the password.

    Intentional language is just a linguistic stance that is sometimes more perspicuous. It doesn't actually say anything about what mental states may or may not exist in something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would think that someone would either invent new words or use the language that actually covers what is really going on.

      Delete
    2. You would think that someone in the IDiot camp would do some actual research and provide some ID positive evidence instead of just whining about the language real scientists use.

      Delete
    3. What language would be more accurate than saying my phone tried to connect to wifi?

      The point is this: Teleological language has nothing to do with imputing conscious states. So, the argument implicit in the post above is silly.

      Delete
    4. Joke: "You would think that someone would either invent new words or use the language that actually covers what is really going on."

      Does a toaster raise a glass of wine or char the surface of bread slices? Only a toaster repairman would know for sure.

      Delete
    5. aiguy:
      What language would be more accurate than saying my phone tried to connect to wifi?

      That's fine as technology is just an extension of us, including our consciousness

      Delete
    6. You would think that someone in the evoTARD camp would do some actual research and provide some positive evidence for blind and mindless processes instead of just whining about the language real scientists use.

      Delete
    7. JoeG: That's fine as technology is just an extension of us, including our consciousness

      Ah, so you actually believe that cars and phones are conscious. No wonder you're having trouble understanding my point.

      Delete
    8. Ah, so you actually believe that cars and phones are conscious.

      No, that isn't what I said. No wonder you are having trouble making a point.

      Delete
    9. aiguy:
      My car didn't want to start this morning.

      The correct way of saying it is:

      My car wouldn't start this morning.

      Then if someone asked why and you said "because it didn't want to" that would reflect on your ignorance


      My phone tried to connect to the wifi but it somehow forgot the password.

      The phone- a smartphone- is an extension of your consciousness and the wifi and internet are also extensions of human consciousness. Extensions of...

      Delete
    10. "The correct way of saying it is:"

      So you agree that when someone uses teleological language, they are not necessarily inferring an intentional cause. Maybe you should tell Cornelius. He seems to disagree.

      Delete
    11. Dr Hunter was referring to experts. Automobile experts and IT experts do not use the words aiguy chose.

      Delete
  10. Teleological language by itself may or may not imply real teleology, but the ubiquity of such language taken in conjunction with specified complexity, irreducible complexity, the failure of Darwinian predictions, which has many scientists seeking new or revised mechanisms for evolutionary change, and the non-falsifiable approach that most scientists adopt, which rules out teleology in biology as a "principle" of science, all converge to make a powerful cumulative case for ID.

    ~Sean

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joe,
    aig: My phone tried to connect to the wifi but it somehow forgot the password.

    jg: The phone- a smartphone- is an extension of your consciousness and the wifi and internet are also extensions of human consciousness. Extensions of...


    It isn't clear what you mean by "extensions", but I'm going to assume you understand that cell phones are not actually conscious. Yet it is perfectly natural to speak of a phone that tries to connect to a network, or that forgets a wifi password. These are simply the simplest ways to refer to these events.

    They should not, however, be taken imply that the phone is consciously trying to do anything at all. Likewise, biologists use intentional language for convenience, but it does not at all imply that biologists believe evolutionary processes are conscious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Hunter was referring to experts. Automobile experts and IT experts do not use the words aiguy chose.

      Obviously aiguy is just trying to score some points by using misrepresentation.

      Also google is your friend

      https://www.google.com/#q=technology+extension+of+the+human+mind&*

      Delete
    2. The rip cord deploys the parchute. The internal combustion engine converts chemical energy into motion. The moon employs gravitational attraction and motion to stay in orbit around the earth. Joe utilizes intelligence to argue his points.

      See, teleological language is used by everyone, and in all fields, but it does not always imply intention or consciousness.

      Delete
    3. LoL! Again a non-expert proves my point.

      Thank you

      Delete
  12. WS
    "The moon employs gravitational attraction and motion to stay in orbit around the earth. "

    The moon moves along curved space-time according to general relativity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. IT experts do not use the words aiguy chose.
    "IT experts" (as well as those of us with doctorates in computer science) do of course use intentional language when describing systems that are not conscious. When a phone forgets a password, everyone knows what that means, and it is simply the easiest way to express it.

    Despite the protests here, the fact remains: Intentional language in no way implies conscious mental states. Cornelius has simply made a bad argument.

    ReplyDelete
  14. aiguy:
    "IT experts" (as well as those of us with doctorates in computer science) do of course use intentional language when describing systems that are not conscious.

    Learn how to read. I said they don't use the words you chose. And they don't.

    When a phone forgets a password, everyone knows what that means, and it is simply the easiest way to express it.

    IT experts do not say the phone forgot the password.

    Despite the protests here, the fact remains: Intentional language in no way implies conscious mental states.

    Too bad that isn't an argument, let alone a refutation.

    Cornelius has simply made a bad argument.

    That's your opinion and your opinion isn't an argument nor is it a refutation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joe G,

    I've pointed out that teleological language is employed regularly in many different contexts without implying anything about conscious mental states. This is an uncontroversial observation, easily confirmed by personal experience, and thoroughly analyzed by linguists and philosophers. I've explained how this undermines the argument that intentional language somehow suggests that conscious mental states were invovled in the design of living systems.

    You have attempted to counter my point by appealing to the authority of "IT experts" who, in your opinion, refrain from using the intentional stance when describing complex systems. You have also suggested that phones and computers are "extensions of our consciousness", apparently in the hope of justifying why intentional language may be appropriately applied to such devices after all... even though IT experts don't use it... or something? :)

    In any event, I'm quite content to leave our exchange as a testamonial to the caliber of argumentation typically employed by supporters of "intelligent design", and I encourage you to mount one final ad hominem attack on me and my intellectual ilk, which will serve to further illuminate (to the comprehending among us) the full extent of the cognitive deficits you strive to overcome.

    Cheers,
    AIGuy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've pointed out that teleological language is employed regularly in many different contexts without implying anything about conscious mental states.

      And you ignored the context. When confronted with that you couldn't even understand what I posted.

      I've explained how this undermines the argument that intentional language somehow suggests that conscious mental states were invovled in the design of living systems.

      The point is that people, not even experts, can help themselves when it comes to biology and teleological language. There isn't any other way to describe what is being observed.

      You have attempted to counter my point by appealing to the authority of "IT experts" who, in your opinion, refrain from using the intentional stance when describing complex systems.

      Wrong. I said they don't use the words that you chose. Using teleological language when describing technology is OK because it is the correct way to go.

      You have also suggested that phones and computers are "extensions of our consciousness", apparently in the hope of justifying why intentional language may be appropriately applied to such devices after all... even though IT experts don't use it... or something? :)

      See, you can't even understand English. Your failure to comprehend English is neither an argument nor a refutation.

      In any event, I'm quite content to leave our exchange as a testimonial to the caliber of argumentation typically employed by critics of "intelligent design".

      Skål,

      JoeG

      Delete
  16. Replies
    1. "Are you an evolutionist?"

      Why do you ask? How could that be germane to this subject?

      Delete
    2. Not something you'd want to admit in public I suppose.

      Delete
    3. That's funny. Most people would be embarrassed to admit that they were a creationist or, even worse, an IDist.

      Delete
    4. Read the gallup polls. Most people identify as Creationists and IDists. Only a small minority identify as evos.

      Delete
    5. "Read the gallup polls. Most people identify as Creationists and IDists. Only a small minority identify as evos."

      Where can we find gallop polls dealing with this?



      Delete
    6. Google-

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

      Delete
    7. LOL! You're a real math whiz Joke. Your link shows 73% accept evolution of some form while only 19% believe in Creationism.

      Stick to repairing toasters.

      Delete
    8. And, I assume, this is a poll of the US. The country that elected Trump.

      Delete
    9. dorkrider is willfully ignorant- ID is not anti-evolution. And it can't even read.

      The 19% refers to evos- ie blind watchmaker evolution.

      Creationists hold 42% with God- guided evolution coming in at 31%.

      So that means 73% do not accept BWE and only 19% does.

      dorkrider is a joke and an embarrassment to humans

      Delete
    10. And, I assume, this is a poll of the US.

      Canada and the rest of the world are no different. People aren't as stupid as you, wee willie. They know that blind watchmaker evolution is untestable clap-trap and as such not science

      Delete
    11. William,

      "That's funny. Most people would be embarrassed to admit that they were a creationist or, even worse, an IDist."

      I guess I'm not most people. :)

      "And, I assume, this is a poll of the US. The country that elected Trump."

      Remember, William, more people voted for Hiliery than Donald.

      The skiing trip to Jasper was great except for the freezing temperatures and my broken ankle.

      Delete