tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7121891319449724638..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Sean Carroll on Why DNA Proves EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88316814889841817572010-03-10T00:00:35.270-08:002010-03-10T00:00:35.270-08:00"Thankee Robert. I find your comments most pi..."<i>Thankee Robert. I find your comments most pithy.</i>"<br /><br />Oh? Rather wooden and simultaneously soft? ;)Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-603169834218465792010-03-08T22:05:12.484-08:002010-03-08T22:05:12.484-08:00"As for HOX genes please provide the peer-rev..."As for HOX genes please provide the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates HOX genes evolved via blind, undirected processes."<br /><br />"Blind, undirected"....as opposed to created? Non-falsifiable. Not even science. <br /><br />Those reviews contain a number of mechanisms for the duplication and divergence of genes. They assume natural processes, but I suppose theistic evolution is equally welcome. Of course, I think what you are looking for is a paper that refutes ID: an impossibility, since you've now inserted religion into the sphere of science.<br /><br />How can I ever prove a designer didn't make a protein that looks like it evolved? For that matter, since all nature is created, how does one separate design from nature? It all gets silly when it gets non-scientific, and your infinitely regressive queries for a paper where the natural evolution of a crustacean to a fly without human interference is proved, while ruling out divine interference or 'frontloading' with all mechanisms known are getting tiresome. It'll be a while on that one. <br /><br />Your "Immaculate Design" directly inserts religion into the sphere of science and the classroom.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12539110830375828032010-03-08T22:03:08.066-08:002010-03-08T22:03:08.066-08:00Thankee Robert.
I find your comments most pithy.Thankee Robert.<br /><br />I find your comments most pithy.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41244848725913858602010-03-08T21:54:02.325-08:002010-03-08T21:54:02.325-08:00p.s. Hat tip for the new "ID" definition...p.s. Hat tip for the new "ID" definition.<br /><br />Diogenes-love the blog.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84160384715793192742010-03-08T21:52:52.653-08:002010-03-08T21:52:52.653-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29732454138733173902010-03-08T14:25:36.602-08:002010-03-08T14:25:36.602-08:00Talk about false advertising.Talk about false advertising.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32283370380716958082010-03-08T14:03:54.081-08:002010-03-08T14:03:54.081-08:00The IDers have pushed this thread off its original...The IDers have pushed this thread off its original topic, which was <strong>Hunter's claim that genetic similarities, no matter how large, now matter their quantity or quality, can never, ever prove a common origin of humans and chimps</strong>, or vertebrates and arthropods, etc.<br /><br />This is what I call "Rapist Logic": the logic a rapist uses when genetic similarity proves he is guilty. Let's see how it works!<br /><br />Prosecutor: DNA incredibly similar to the accused was found on the victim, Ms. Dee Duction. Therefore, we conclude that the accused, Mr. Cree Ationist, raped and murdered Dee Duction.<br /><br />Cree Ationist: Objection. Logical fallacy. No DNA similarities of any conceivable amount can ever prove common origin.<br /><br />Prosecutor: Also, the blood under the victim's fingernails matches the blood type of the accused.<br /><br />Cree Ationist: Circular logic. The circular logic consists of him having a ton of evidence that fits his theory and disproves mine. Because the evidence proves his theory, he is using circular logic. If he wasn't an atheist, he'd understand that.<br /><br />When he objectively described evidence proving I committed the crime, he was <strong>assuming</strong> I committed the crime! Oh, the circular logic!<br /><br />...By the creationist definition of "circular." Creationists define the word "circular" as meaning "proves us wrong." <br /><br />Prosecutor: We also have a videotape of the crime. The the accused looks just like the perpetrator in the video...<br /><br />Cree Ationist: Oh, the logical fallacies! Similarities cannot prove common origin. The perpetrator and I both need eyes to see. Thus, functional requirements explain why he and I have eyes of the same color and eyeglasses of the identical rare Italian design. <br /><br />He and I both need hair to keep our heads warm. Thus, functional requirements explain why we have hair of the identical color and styled in identical hairdos. <br /><br />He and I both need noses to breathe. Thus, function explains why we have noses of the identical size and shape and with moles in the same place.<br /><br />Prosecutor: the hair of the accused was found on the victim, and his alibi for the night of the murder was a lie.<br /><br />Cree Ationist: Circular logic, circular logic! La la la la! [puts fingers in ears] Nannoo nannoo nannoo! I'll just keep saying "circular logic" until some idiots believe it and the jury hangs.<br /><br />Prosecutor: In his diary, the accused wrote: "Last night I raped and murdered Dee Duction."<br /><br />Cree Ationist: Other explanations are possible.<br /><br />Prosecutor: Such as?<br /><br />Cree Ationist: The DNA, blood and hair similarities, and the writing in my diary, could have been created directly by God for unknown purposes. To trick us, maybe. Or to show off His infinite power and glory! God is great! But an atheist like you wouldn't understand that, huh wouldja <i>atheist</i>!?<br />The prosecutor clearly has a <strong>metaphysical presuppostion</strong> that causes him to exclude supernatural violations of the laws of physics as possible explanations for the rape I committed last Wednesday. It's just his dogmatic religious belief that apparent rapes and murders can’t be caused by miraculous violations of the laws of physics!<br /><br />Prosecutor: But if supernatural explanations can be used to wave away vast similarities between evidence and the distinct specific predictions of theories, then you can never prove ANY criminal is guilty!<br /><br />Cree Ationist: Now you're cathing on, genius! If we can trick ordinary people into never using reason or looking for evidence to back up statements, then <a href="http://lamp-of-diogenes.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-is-right-wing-war-against.html" rel="nofollow">perverted religious leaders and their corporate overlords can do anything and will never be held accountable</a>!<br /><br />If you want some more laughs at the expense of anti-scientists, you can <a href="http://lamp-of-diogenes.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">read my blog.</a>Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77370383161067887012010-03-06T22:43:59.335-08:002010-03-06T22:43:59.335-08:00C.Hunter: "When you argue for mere common des...<b>C.Hunter:</b> "<i>When you argue for mere common descent, without specifying mechanism, then that's good science. But when someone argues for design, without specifying mechanism, then that's bad science.</i>"<br /><br />Another example (of the common intellectual hypocrisy of proponents of Darwinism) has to do with the asserted distinction, a intellectual "wall of separation," if you will, between '<i>methodological naturalism</i>' and '<i>philosophical naturalism</i>.' Does it not seem odd, at least, that 'modern evolutionary theorists' will not contemplate that there is a corresponding "wall of separation" between '<i>methodological designism</i>' and '<i>philosophical designism</i>?' <br /><br />Why, it's enough to make one suspect that that asserted "wall of separation" between '<i>methodological naturalism</i>' and '<i>philosophical naturalism</i>' may be, at best, as substantial as tissue paper.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5107367228366493492010-03-06T18:59:07.308-08:002010-03-06T18:59:07.308-08:00Zachriel: ID doesn't make specific and disting...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design.</i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Of course it does. ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.</i><br /><br />That is clearly meant as a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction. It is not. <br /><br />Your "Design Hypothesis" has even less scientific merit. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.</i><br /><br />The "prediction" is not entailed.<br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe.</i><br /><br />There are actually at least two inconsistent sets of physical laws, relativity and quantum mechanics.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23874446842748335352010-03-06T15:27:25.204-08:002010-03-06T15:27:25.204-08:00Shubin: Tiktaalik reveals the early stages in the ...<i>Shubin: Tiktaalik reveals the early stages in the evolution of our wrist, palm, and finger area.</i><br /><br />Yeah millions of years AFTER those characteristics had already appeared.<br /><br />Wait, that would mean Shubin lied...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21472115760680237982010-03-06T15:22:45.571-08:002010-03-06T15:22:45.571-08:00ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accou...<b>ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>It's not an empirical prediction.</i><br /><br />Of course it is. <br /><br /><i> An empirical prediction says look here and this is what you will see.</i><br /><br />And I said exactly that in my design hypothesis.<br /><br />You ignored my design hypothesis as if your ignorance is meaningful discourse.<br /><br />You also ignored request after request for a testable hypothesis for your position.<br /><br />Again you think your ignorance means something.<br /><br />Strange.<br /><br />As for Shubin's failed prediction if you had read "Your Inner Fish" you would knmow about it.<br /><br />I explained it above and all you can do is ognore that too.<br /><br />Do you really think your ignorance helps you?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20244563811217511012010-03-06T15:13:21.247-08:002010-03-06T15:13:21.247-08:00Joe G: ID predicts that which is designed cannot b...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.</i><br /><br />It's not an empirical prediction. An empirical prediction says look here and this is what you will see. Your "prediction" concerns what can or cannot be accounted for. We've provided you examples on a number of occasions, but you don't seem to ever remember them. Here's a few. <br /><br />Halley's Comet<br />Retardation of the Pendulum<br />Michelson–Morley experiment<br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Perhaps you should read "Your Inner Fish" it is all there.</i><br /><br />Okay. <br /><br /><b>Shubin</b>: Tiktaalik <i>reveals the early stages in the evolution of our wrist, palm, and finger area.</i><br /><br />Agreed.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73221363302668118302010-03-06T15:08:38.414-08:002010-03-06T15:08:38.414-08:00Robert,
All the brine shrimp/ fruit fly experimen...Robert,<br /><br />All the brine shrimp/ fruit fly experiment shows is that if a brine shrimp protein is introduced to a fruit fly egg the fruit fly will not fully develop its mid-thorax legs.<br /><br />That is it.<br /><br />No new body plan was created.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16905588942355478412010-03-06T15:06:43.310-08:002010-03-06T15:06:43.310-08:00Robert,
Show me the fixation equation aplied to a...Robert,<br /><br />Show me the fixation equation aplied to a real-life wild population.<br /><br />And if birds with teeth "evolving" into birds without teeeth is all you have then your position is useless.<br /><br />As for HOX genes please provide the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates HOX genes evolved via blind, undirected processes.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90846780100573042262010-03-06T15:03:49.053-08:002010-03-06T15:03:49.053-08:00ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accou...<b>ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>That's not a valid observational prediction.</i><br /><br />Of course it is.<br /><br />Who are you to say it isn't?<br /><br /><i>It's a vague claim about whether science can account for some strawman of your own devising.</i><br /><br />It is a specific claim about how science determines design from nature,operating freely.<br /><br />As for your bald claim of a strawman- please be specific and explain exactly what that strawman is.<br /><br />As for Tiktaalik- it was a failed prediction.<br /><br />Shubin went looking for a specific transitional and was looking in the wrong place.<br /><br />I can't help it if you are too messed up to understand tat fact.<br /><br />Perhaps you should read "Your Inner Fish" it is all there.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29035964683847376642010-03-06T14:43:14.518-08:002010-03-06T14:43:14.518-08:00"I have asked you for a real-life example of ..."I have asked you for a real-life example of fixation."<br /><br />Any allele at 100% in any population would be considered fixed, if that population is isolated, or the totality of the species. I don't even get your point. Are you actually disputing fixation does occur? I can't even think of a defense of that position! In a lab, you can do this in a few crosses with Drosophila alleles, or maize, or any experimental organism. <br /><br />Anyway, here is one where it has been traced in nature:<br />Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of Ectodysplasin alleles.<br />Colosimo PF, Hosemann KE, ..., Schluter D, Kingsley DM Science 2005 Mar 25 307 (5717):1928-33<br /><br />Or Directly observed:<br />Rapid fixation of a distinctive sequence motif in the 3′ noncoding region of the clade of West Nile virus invading North America<br />Gene Volume 399, Issue 2, 15 September 2007, Pages 152-161<br /><br />Or any of the other thousands of papers that come up is you do a pubmed search. I won't bother searching further, as you'll disregard them anyway. Human examples in recent history are harder, due to migrations mingling separated populations, and the lack of recent bottlenecks affecting the whole population. Prior to this, the Duffy allele, the lack of the B blood group allele, and obvious traits such as skin and hair color were fixed within populations. <br /><br />"Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them. It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos."<br /><br />So they just genetically "changed" from "toothy-proto-birds" to "birds?" That is evolution. And the molecular mechanism is being laid clear. <br /><br />"And no they didn't get a brine shrimp from manipulating a fruit fly."<br /><br />No, they proved a gain of function mutation leads to body plans. This was precisely your original query. Now you want someone to make a fruit fly from a crustacean, or vice-versa. There are labs working on crustaceans as model organisms, in attempt to express the fly genes. Of course, if they accomplished this, you would dismiss it as artificial.<br /><br />Hox genes are an excellent example of evolution. They have duplicated, and diverged to new functions. The water strider legs, the chicken teeth, and the fly legs all demonstrate how the evolution of key members of that pathway can alter it. <br /><br />"And again your position cannot explain HOX genes, regulatory networks and transcription factors."<br /><br />Odd wording. "Cannot explain" Their evolution? Their function? Hox genes are sequence-specific DNA binding transcription factors that participate in development. And on the contrary, that is exactly what those papers do. They track the evolution of those very things (Hox and other transcription factors that affect regulatory networks) and functionally test them, develop hypotheses, and refine them.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9904071276884010682010-03-06T12:43:43.759-08:002010-03-06T12:43:43.759-08:00Cornelius Hunter: So evolution is mandated.
Not a...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>So evolution is mandated.</i><br /><br />Not at all. What is mandated in science are testable hypotheses. <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>When you argue for mere common descent, without specifying mechanism, then that's good science. </i><br /><br />Lacking omniscience, what we do in science is make what valid determinations we can and work from there. Common Descent is strongly supported by the evidence for most taxa, evidence we can certainly discuss. This evidence allows us to order the transition of organisms, and therefore order the transition of organic structures. Having done so, we can then compare these transitions to the mechanisms we can observe, such as natural variation, sources of variation and natural selection.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76563385256757200722010-03-06T12:35:58.642-08:002010-03-06T12:35:58.642-08:00Joe G: ID predicts that which is designed cannot b...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.</i><br /><br />That's not a valid observational prediction. It's a vague claim about whether science can account for some strawman of your own devising. Compare that to a valid prediction such as Halley's prediction of the comet, or Shubin's prediction of Tiktaalik. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>In "Your Inner Fish" Shubin makes it clear he was looking for the transional between fish and land vertebrates. He was looking in a specific spot because he thought teh alleged earlier transition existed in a specific spot. He was looking under faulty pretences- the transition had already occured.</i><br /><br />Tiktaalik certainly qualifies as an intermediate organism. That doesn't mean it was on the direct line of descent. Indeed, it is rarely possible to make such a determination. However, it was certainly close cousins to the lineage that led to land vertebrates. <br /><br />And again. The discovery of Tiktaalik is a phenomenal accomplishment. Handwaving, not so much. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>A simple example is antibiotic resistance which fixes rapidly when under selection.</i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>That is all you ahve? Artificial selection?</i><br /><br />Antibiotics and resistance exist in nature.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49244408406851285262010-03-06T10:43:32.817-08:002010-03-06T10:43:32.817-08:00Zach:
========
Joe G: ID isn't about fossils....Zach:<br /><br />========<br />Joe G: ID isn't about fossils.<br /><br />That's the problem, of course. ID isn't about anything. ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design.<br />========<br /><br />So evolution is mandated. This is what it's all about--non scientific arguments.<br /><br />When you argue for mere common descent, without specifying mechanism, then that's good science. But when someone argues for design, without specifying mechanism, then that's bad science.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50741531540308532882010-03-06T10:35:04.866-08:002010-03-06T10:35:04.866-08:00ID isn't about fossils.
Zachriel:
That's ...<b>ID isn't about fossils.</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>That's the problem, of course.</i><br /><br />Why is that? Can design be detected by looking at fossils?<br /><br />I don't think so.<br /><br />That is because not everything that has lived has been fossilized.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>ID isn't about any-thing.</i><br /><br />Only an ignorant person would say that.<br /><br />ID is about the detection and study of things that have been intentionally designed.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design.</i><br /><br />Of course it does.<br /><br />ID predicts that which is designed cannot be accounted for via blind, undirected processes.<br /><br />Things that are designed usually exhibit counterflow or work.<br /><br /><a href="http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007/12/intelligent-design-design-hypothesis.html" rel="nofollow"><b>The Design Hypothesis</b></a><br /><br />I will note it is much more than anything you can produce that supports your position.<br /><br />However your position doesn't offer any empirical predictions but relies on "it evolved" or "the blind watcmaker didit".<br /><br /><b>How did Shubin et al., date the strata they found Tiktaalik?</b><br /><br /><i>Good question. They looked at a map, like this one. Geologists have already mapped much of the Earth's crust.</i><br /><br />That just moves the question back.<br /><br />It doesn't answer it. <br /><br /><b> You don't look for your grandfather in a list of your descendents.</b><br /><br /><i>An intermediate organism is usually just a close cousin.</i><br /><br />Enough jibbar-jabber.<br /><br />In "Your Inner Fish" Shubin makes it clear he was looking for the transional between fish and land vertebrates.<br /><br />He was looking in a specific spot because he thought teh alleged earlier transition existed in a specific spot.<br /><br />He was looking under faulty pretences- the transition had already occured.<br /><br />Tiktaalik is not the transitional Shubin et al., were looking for.<br /><br /><b>Tiktaalik doesn't have a wrist joint- possible wrist bones but no joint.</b><br /><br /><i>Shubin, Daeschler and Jenkins, The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb, Nature 2006.</i><br /><br />Great- look at the diagram- in vertebrates with a wrist joint the ulna and radius articulate the wrist.<br /><br />Not with Tiktaalik.<br /><br />It isn't a wrist joint.<br /><br /><b>a real-life example of fixation.</b><br /><br /><i>A simple example is antibiotic resistance which fixes rapidly when under selection.</i><br /><br />That is all you ahve? Artificial selection?<br /><br />Thatnk you for continuing to demonstrate the vacuity of your position. <br /><br /><b>Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them. It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos.</b><br /><br /><i>It is just one piece of evidence, but it is a verifiable and verified empirical prediction.</i><br /><br />Piece of evidence for what?<br /><br />Verified empirical prediction of what?<br /><br />I say it is a piece of evidence that shows that birds once had teeth.<br /><br />It isn't evidence that birds evolved from reptilees nor dinosaurs.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6714881842457881262010-03-06T09:42:03.834-08:002010-03-06T09:42:03.834-08:00Joe G: ID isn't about fossils.
That's the...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>ID isn't about fossils.</i><br /><br />That's the problem, of course. ID isn't about any-thing. ID doesn't make specific and distinguising empirical predictions, but relies on Immaculate Design. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>How did Shubin et al., date the strata they found Tiktaalik?</i><br /><br />Good question. They looked at a map, like <a href="http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/gmna/" rel="nofollow">this one</a>. Geologists have already mapped much of the Earth's crust. Amazing how independent scientists working with rocks of all things can provide crucial information for biologists leading to the discovery of a heretofore unknown organism. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>You don't look for your grandfather in a list of your descendents.</i><br /><br />An intermediate organism is usually just a close cousin. Intermediate organisms retain some primitive traits but also have derived traits that represent transitional structures. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Tiktaalik doesn't have a wrist joint- possible wrist bones but no joint.</i><br /><br />Shubin, Daeschler and Jenkins, <i>The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb</i>, Nature 2006. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>a real-life example of fixation.</i><br /><br />A simple example is antibiotic resistance which fixes rapidly when under selection. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them. It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos.</i><br /><br />It is just one piece of evidence, but it is a verifiable and verified empirical prediction. Again, something that ID never bothers to do.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14497960419359614222010-03-06T08:35:25.462-08:002010-03-06T08:35:25.462-08:00Robert,
Did you read and understand that fruit fl...Robert,<br /><br />Did you read and understand that fruit fly/ brine shrimp paper?<br /><br />They took a protein from the shrimp and placed it into a fruit fly embryo.<br /><br />All that happened was the fruit fly developed rudimentry legs where full legs usually form.<br /><br />Man you are very gullible.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84079783132827154642010-03-06T08:28:22.984-08:002010-03-06T08:28:22.984-08:00Robert,
I have asked you for a real-life example ...Robert,<br /><br />I have asked you for a real-life example of fixation.<br /><br />You have failed to provide one.<br /><br />Birds growing teeth just means that birds at one time had them.<br /><br />It doesn't mean they evolved from reptiles nor dinos.<br /><br />And no they didn't get a brine shrimp from manipulating a fruit fly.<br /><br />And again your position cannot explain HOX genes, regulatory networks and transcription factors.<br /><br />Do you understand that?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15719197768627540822010-03-06T08:24:26.363-08:002010-03-06T08:24:26.363-08:00Zachriel:
It's never ID Advocates who make th...Zachriel:<br /><i> It's never ID Advocates who make these discoveries.</i><br /><br />ID isn't about fossils.<br /><br /><i>Or by geological methodology, by physics methodology. Multiple methodologies allows for higher confidence and accuracy.</i><br /><br />How did Shubin et al., date the strata they found Tiktaalik?<br /><br /><i>In any case, the researchers spent years in the Canadian Arctic, and found an organism with the predicted characteristics.</i><br /><br />You don't look for your grandfather in a list of your descendents.<br /><br />They were looking in the wrong place.<br /><br />What part of that don't you understand? <br /><br />The transition had already occurred.<br /><br />What part of that don't you understand?<br /><br /><i>The difference being that they found Tiktaalik.</i><br /><br />They were looking for THE transitional form and found it in strata AFTER the transition occurred.<br /><br />IOW had they been privy to the recent find BEFORE they went searching they never would have went to the location they did.<br /><br /><b>It isn't an interemediate- just a mosaic.</b><br /><br /><i>Of course it exhibits intermediate features.</i><br /><br />Tat has nothing to do with what I said.<br /><br />BTW Tiktaalik doesn't have a wrist joint- possible wrist bones but no joint.<br /><br />Once again you respond with subterfuge.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79039224371873013332010-03-05T14:02:17.812-08:002010-03-05T14:02:17.812-08:00"Do you really think I had to wait to read th..."Do you really think I had to wait to read those articles until you linked to them?"<br /><br />I didn't realize you had the entire literature memorized by heart. More likely, your heart tells you to reject the entire literature out of hand.<br /><br />"No one took brine shrimp embryos and manipulated them in such a way such that a fruit fly body plan arose."<br /><br />No, but they did manipulate a fruit fly in such a way that brine shrimp body plans arose. At any rate, the experiments show insect UBX has a GAIN of function that allows it to repress Dll expression and limb development vs the crustacean protein. The functional motifs responsible for the gain of funtion (QAQA and AAAA) are known, and track with evolution. Also, within insects, localized UBX expression allows for differential patterning of body plans.<br /><br />"Birds with teeth is interesting but it is something humans accomplished."<br /><br />Wrong again. The talin mutant is a naturally occurring mutant. The scientists recapitulated the effect of the talin mutant in wild-type chickens by over expressing Beta-catenin. Besides reinforcing evolution by reactivating a ancient gene program, this work lead to this (falsifiable!!!) hypothesis: "We hypothesize that the loss of teeth in birds was due to the loss of direct apposition between an epithelial signaling center at the oral/aboral boundary and the underlying mesenchyme of the oral cavity competent to form integumentary appendages."<br /><br />Of course you would know this if you had read/understood/chose not to misrepresent the papers.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.com