tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post727613735685464118..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution’s Junk Science at the University of MaineUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65406437752896141062015-10-13T02:22:36.519-07:002015-10-13T02:22:36.519-07:00Thanks for the sharing.
-Caroline
http://www.creat...Thanks for the sharing.<br />-Caroline<br />http://www.creativebiomart.net/creative biomarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02942463473967593524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-172297266944246562015-10-03T13:11:17.388-07:002015-10-03T13:11:17.388-07:00see my coment downsee my coment downscdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44905538838679469932015-09-29T11:30:32.679-07:002015-09-29T11:30:32.679-07:00If you take a course in ID and spout evolution you...<i>If you take a course in ID and spout evolution you will fail. </i><br /><br />ID is not anti-evolution. You fail.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31293629572835117102015-09-29T11:20:36.776-07:002015-09-29T11:20:36.776-07:00If you take a course on chemistry and you spout al...If you take a course on chemistry and you spout alchemy, you will fail. If you take a course in theology and spout atheism, you will fail. When you take a course in history of the second world war and spout holocaust denial, you will fail. When you take a course in physics and argue that angels push the planets and stars around, you will fail. If you take a course in ID and spout evolution you will fail. Why should a course on evolution be any different? You take courses in any subject you do it to learn about the theory and evidence supporting it. <br /><br />I took several evolution courses and there was plenty of opportunity do discuss the theory and any alternatives. But when a question is asked about genetic drift, or natural selection, you can't respond that it doesn't exist and that it is all designed. Any more than you could answer a question about gravity in a physics exam by saying that gravity doesn't exist, the world sucks.William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71793349347787267062015-09-29T11:04:41.560-07:002015-09-29T11:04:41.560-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18330192213239266942015-09-29T10:42:49.619-07:002015-09-29T10:42:49.619-07:00Mislead? To declare the theories of evolution to i...Mislead? To declare the theories of evolution to impressionable children as the truth in the textbooks, making them memorize evolutionary doctrines as fact to be able to pass their exams is not misleading it's reprehensible. <br />I have friends who in college were told in no uncertain terms that if they expressed dissent over the theory they wouldn't pass the course. Seems there's a problem that permeates the field.<br /><br />PhillyMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09048456402828838092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30490517017940416312015-09-29T09:45:21.578-07:002015-09-29T09:45:21.578-07:00glenn. even if you change an amino acid and get th...glenn. even if you change an amino acid and get the same protein its not mean that they identical, we know that even a codon that code for the same amino acid can effect the regulation of the protein. so you dont have any evidence that this protein work the same.<br /><br />now, if evolution isnt true, what evidence we will need to find from a phylogenetic prespective?scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3885909311503867672015-09-29T08:29:13.891-07:002015-09-29T08:29:13.891-07:00Again since there is no explicit theory of evoluti...Again since there is no explicit theory of evolutionism we can't say anything constructive nor have some predictive power.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74370238458729039552015-09-29T07:34:00.274-07:002015-09-29T07:34:00.274-07:00 One gene = multiple proteins.
If the genes were ... One gene = multiple proteins.<br /><br />If the genes were exactly the same so would the other proteins made from it. The sequences are different because the other proteins made from it are different.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73120617237921230182015-09-29T06:55:58.318-07:002015-09-29T06:55:58.318-07:00It is nice to see that it took you no longer than ...<i>It is nice to see that it took you no longer than it has taken any other intelligent human being to conclude that Joe deserves sympathy, but not intellectual respect. </i><br /><br />Well only a moron argues that mRNA codons are catalysts and William Spearshake has done exactly that.<br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66964641080175609642015-09-29T06:52:24.715-07:002015-09-29T06:52:24.715-07:00ID makes sense of it via a common design and alter...ID makes sense of it via a common design and alternative splicing. That is the differences in the sequence are due to the differing proteins made from the same sequences.<br /><br />Also unguided evolution cannot explain any proteins so you lose.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40202032908467580092015-09-29T06:50:27.703-07:002015-09-29T06:50:27.703-07:00Glenn:
Yes they are functionally equivalent. Pleas...Glenn:<br /><i>Yes they are functionally equivalent. Please read the study I posted.</i><br /><br />I am talking about the organisms and you are stuck on the one protein.<br /><br /><i>Why is the chimpanzee sequence closer to the human sequence than it is to the whale sequence, when all three are functionally equivalent?</i><br /><br />Because the chimp and human also share similar proteins from the other proteins made by alternative splicing from that gene.<br /><br /><i>I can only phrase it in so many ways before I have to conclude that you're just not bright enough to understand it.</i><br /><br />Nice projection. You don't even grasp the implications of alternative splicing.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10135069096131993032015-09-29T06:47:42.134-07:002015-09-29T06:47:42.134-07:00Glenn:
We are comparing the same transcripts. The ...Glenn:<br /><i>We are comparing the same transcripts. The differences in these transcripts between species are not due to alternative splicing. They are due to variations in the underlying DNA, and demonstrably so.</i><br /><br />You are a moron. The differences are to facilitate alternative splicing. The differences allow for different proteins from those differing transcripts.<br /><br />Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82658695682234798802015-09-29T04:51:35.117-07:002015-09-29T04:51:35.117-07:00I think trying to debuke textbooks example is not ...I think trying to debuke textbooks example is not the way to go Mr Hunter. If they are in textbooks it's because they are clear example that are suited for students. <br /><br />Anybody with an open mind would realise that the case for evolution and common descent of this example is convincing. Of course you could also turn a blind eye and play it <i>mala fide</i>.<br /><br />Then again ID can't really make sense of this cytc example. With ID you can't predict that the phylogeny of cytC should correspond to the apparent tree of life. Or design take the disguide of common descent. <br />Again since there is no explicit theory of ID we can't say anything constructive nor have some predictive power.<br /> Calamityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247404259851404588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65243931998578348522015-09-28T19:20:17.416-07:002015-09-28T19:20:17.416-07:00Glen: "I can only phrase it in so many ways b...Glen: "<i>I can only phrase it in so many ways before I have to conclude that you're just not bright enough to understand it."</i><br /><br />I was wondering when you would come to this conclusion. It is nice to see that it took you no longer than it has taken any other intelligent human being to conclude that Joe deserves sympathy, but not intellectual respect. <br /><br />William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40878408763624595802015-09-28T18:16:12.318-07:002015-09-28T18:16:12.318-07:00@Joe G,
"The three aren't functionally e...@Joe G,<br /><br /><i>"The three aren't functionally equivalent. Even a child can see that a chimp looks more like a human than a whale."</i><br /><br />Yes they are functionally equivalent. Please read the study I posted.<br /><br />Of course a chimp looks more like a human than a whale. I don't even think you realise it, but you're making an implicit causal relationship between the requirements of an organism (or it's morphology) and its CytC sequence, when it is demonstrable that no such relationship exists.<br /><br />I can only phrase it in so many ways before I have to conclude that you're just not bright enough to understand it.<br /><br />Try answering the question again, but this time think before you type. <b>Why is the chimpanzee sequence closer to the human sequence than it is to the whale sequence, when all three are functionally equivalent?</b><br />Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28677652348582009702015-09-28T18:09:37.732-07:002015-09-28T18:09:37.732-07:00@Joe G,
We are comparing the same transcripts. Th...@Joe G,<br /><br />We are comparing the same transcripts. The differences in these transcripts between species are not due to alternative splicing. They are due to variations in the underlying DNA, and demonstrably so.<br /><br />Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2753997590272143302015-09-28T18:07:49.783-07:002015-09-28T18:07:49.783-07:00Why is the chimpanzee sequence closer to the human...<i>Why is the chimpanzee sequence closer to the human sequence than it is to the whale sequence, when all three are functionally equivalent? </i><br /><br />The three aren't functionally equivalent. Even a child can see that a chimp looks more like a human than a whale.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56019915409255529602015-09-28T18:06:24.557-07:002015-09-28T18:06:24.557-07:00LoL! Alternative splicing and overlapping are very...LoL! Alternative splicing and overlapping are very relevant when discussing the sequence differences.<br /><br />As I said, you are dim.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25407089860732175472015-09-28T17:56:47.253-07:002015-09-28T17:56:47.253-07:00@Joe G,
Are you dim? One gene = multiple proteins...@Joe G,<br /><br /><i>Are you dim? One gene = multiple proteins.</i><br /><br />No, I'm not dim. We're only comparing one transcript between multiple species. Alternate splicing is completely irrelevant here.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68731327061536278852015-09-28T17:54:59.756-07:002015-09-28T17:54:59.756-07:00Glenn:
"Why are there different sequences for...Glenn:<br /><b><i>"Why are there different sequences for the same function?"</i></b><br /><br /><i>Because they can.</i><br /><br />Wow. It's like you're not even trying.<br /><br /><i>You do realize that it is more than one gene one protein.</i><br /><br />I do, but I fail to see how this is relevant when we are comparing a single transcript across multiple species.<br /><br /><b><i>"Common descent answers it easily."</i></b><br /><br /><i>No, it doesn't.</i><br /><br />From the guy that says "they're different because they can be". Common descent draws on empirical observations (mutation, drift, fixation) while your response doesn't even qualify as an explanation. It explains nothing. <b>Why is the chimpanzee sequence closer to the human sequence than it is to the whale sequence, when all three are functionally equivalent?</b> Try again.<br /><br />Or not. Because it's pretty clear that you don't WANT to understand it.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2139443856529621152015-09-28T17:42:10.767-07:002015-09-28T17:42:10.767-07:00Glenn:
Read this:
http://www.jbc.org/content/261/...Glenn:<br /><i>Read this:<br /><br />http://www.jbc.org/content/261/7/3259.full.pdf<br /><br />... and then try and tell me that the variations are due to different requirements.</i><br /><br />Are you dim? One gene = multiple proteins.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84721272976524432572015-09-28T17:40:48.539-07:002015-09-28T17:40:48.539-07:00Glenn:
Why are there different sequences for the s...Glenn:<br /><i>Why are there different sequences for the same function?</i><br /><br />Because they can. You do realize that it is more than one gene one protein.<br /><br /><i>Common descent answers it easily.</i><br /><br />No, it doesn't.<br /><br /><i>Because the variant residues (which don't affect function) reflect the mutations shared by common ancestors.</i><br /><br />You don't know that. <br /><br /><i>So, why, among so any possible sequences, did your designer choose to lay them out in such a way that its tree would match a morphological tree?</i><br /><br />It's how the design was laid out.<br /><br /><i>Please continue that thought by telling is how a COMMON DESIGN why explains the differences.</i><br /><br />Already have.<br /><br /><i> What is the purpose of the tree in the first place when literally any configuration would work?</i><br /><br />Because a tree is the best way to organize a complex design. It is widely used.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79510604491725634522015-09-28T17:35:54.873-07:002015-09-28T17:35:54.873-07:00Glenn:
I said that you are going to have to justif...Glenn:<br /><i>I said that you are going to have to justify that statement when the empirical scientific evidence says exactly the opposite.</i><br /><br />What research shows the opposite? You don't even understand the argument.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18029992580912122282015-09-28T17:35:05.540-07:002015-09-28T17:35:05.540-07:00@Joe G,
Read this:
http://www.jbc.org/content/26...@Joe G,<br /><br />Read this:<br /><br />http://www.jbc.org/content/261/7/3259.full.pdf<br /><br />... and then try and tell me that the variations are due to different requirements.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.com