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.

23 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