Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic--not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.Like the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz, evolution is vulnerable to the least bit of exposure. And like the man behind the curtain, evolution puts up a pathetic false front of self-righteous indignation and assumed authority. Even the normally dry pages of scientific journals now routinely run "editorials" attacking skeptics.
Witness the unauthorized films Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and The Voyage That Shook the World. These documentaries are tugging at the curtain and evolutionists are lashing out. And their fury is exceeded only by their absurdity (see examples here, here and here). Incredibly, they complain that they didn't know the films would have the temerity to raise questions, apparently unaware their umbrage reveals far more about themselves than about the documentaries.
When I was contacted by the producers of these films the thought crossed my mind that my interview could be used against me. I didn't know these people or what their respective projects were about. But I reminded myself that it would be awfully difficult for the producers to manipulate my interview for their film. You see, I have nothing to hide. The only way my words could be twisted would be with highly selective editing. What if they interviewed me for two hours, and picked out a 3 second sound bite out of context? Well then I would have a right to complain.
Nothing like this happened to the otherwise furious evolutionists. Their views were fairly and accurately represented. There was no message manipulation. There was no clever editing of the interviews to produce a false image of evolution; rather, the problem is that the interviews accurately show the real image of evolution.
You see, evolutionists have something to hide. Their message needs to be carefully managed and tailored. Otherwise, it looks pathetic.
Dr. Hunter
ReplyDeleteDiscovered your blog through 4Simpsons.
I have had a question for some time and perhaps you or one of your commenters would be willing to answer it.
What scientific advancement do we enjoy today as a result of the perhaps millions of hours poured into evolutionary research? It is my take that the answer is zero, with the possible exception of enabling one to rationalize his faith that there is no God. I am considering a post on this but I am not 100% sure I am correct. Perhaps you or one of your commenters would be able to help.
Dan: Understanding the development of drug resistances for one.
ReplyDeleteFalse. Resistance in bacteria to antibiotics is complex and enabled by mechanisms not predicted by evolution, and not relevant to the large-scale change hypothesized by evolution.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteEvolution defines modern biology. You can't isolate medical accomplishments and say they weren't impacted by the rest of the field. Phylogenetics and the use of model organisms, for example, only makes sense in the case of common descent.
But some more 'direct' cases, if you wish:
Drug cycling to slow the resistance of drug resistant HIV and antibiotic resistant bacteria is based on the understanding of how these resistances are evolved.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120478.php
Deep homology suggests functional pathways to probe human diseases such as autism and cancer in diverse model organisms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27gene.html?pagewanted=all
Directed evolution produces useful products for industry, particularly enzyme catalysis.
http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v5/n8/abs/nchembio.203.html
False. Resistance in bacteria to antibiotics is complex and enabled by mechanisms not predicted by evolution,
ReplyDeleteWhat a fascinating statement.
Name these mechanisms please.
and not relevant to the large-scale change hypothesized by evolution.
And here we go... when in trouble pretend "evolution" only refers to speciation and nothing else.
"Resistance in bacteria to antibiotics is complex"
ReplyDeleteComplex? Isn't biology complex? I suppose in the mind of ID, evolution doesn't produce complexity, but that is a falsified prediction. Sometimes it is quite simple-the recognition of a drug by mutation of a old enzyme or export pump due to mutations.
"enabled by mechanisms not predicted by evolution"
Such as? What mechanism of drug resistance is at odds with evolution?
"not relevant to the large-scale change hypothesized by evolution."
Ha! I didn't know evolution only predicts large scale changes. You go on and on about how evolution didn't predict anything but gradualism, and now you say these changes are too small.
How about helping to understand cancer?
ReplyDeletehttp://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/ArticlesPDFs/evolutionofcancer.pdf
Charles,
ReplyDeleteCancer is an interesting case-many are caused or worsened by gain-of-function mutations.
Since ID informs us that functionality and information can't increase in natural processes, each of these must be the direct handiwork of an intelligent designer.
"Evolution defines modern biology."
ReplyDeleteHow is this true? I need more than this.
"Evolution defines modern biology."
ReplyDeleteHow is this true? I need more than this.
You know, there was several paragraphs of "more" in his post after that.... but ok.
Evolution is the theoretical underpinning that explains how every single biological trait possessed by every species on the planet developped and continues to change. That's how it's true.
Trying to understand biology without understanding evolution is like trying to understand a nuclear reactor without knowing what protons are. You might be able to get it at a gross level "When I take those rod thingies out by pushing this button over here the power output goes up!" but you're not really going to understand why that happens at a deeper level. You might be able to run the place... maybe even keep it kind of maintained... but you're going to be severely limited in just how far you can go with it before you break something you didn't understand
RobertC:
ReplyDeleteWhile a lot is known about gain-of-function mutations in cancer cells (the BCR-Abl fusion being the classic example), we rarely hear about the generation of a novel structure by cancer cells called Vasculogenic mimicry.
Ref: Vasculogenic mimicry: Current status and future prospects, Zhang et al. 2007.
"Under appropriate matrix microenvironment conditions, highly aggressive and metastatic uveal and cutaneous melanoma cells can form highly patterned vascular channels. The generation of such microvascular channels by genetically deregulated, aggressive tumor cells is termed vasculogenic mimicry (VM) to emphasize its de novo generation that is independent of angiogenesis."
Alright Charles,
ReplyDeleteI went with novel functions in cancer, you countered with novel structures.
I'll raise you novel organisms:
These pathogens are infectious organisms that arose from cancer cells. The dog cancer infects other species, and the hamster sarcoma can even be spread by mosquitoes!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14220251
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticker%27s_sarcoma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumor_disease
Oh, and since evolution can't produce anything, the designer has been busy, busy, busy.....
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI see your dilemma and I agree that evolution has put biological science innumerable person hours behind schedule.
Genetic changes in organisms can be studied far better by applying concepts from information theoretic principles and design inferences exposing control algorithms. Questions like these might be helpful:
How would genetic algorithms respond to specific environmental pressures? Would they show signs of degeneration, like losing functions to survive? I.e. what are antibiotics actually doing to the cellular mechanisms of the bugs it is killing?
One fortunate thing is that there are lots of good responsible biologists who only take about 5% of their time to Darwinize their very useful work, just to make sure they get published and grants. Would we call that hypothetical 5% of their resources Darwin tax?
"How would genetic algorithms respond to specific environmental pressures?"
ReplyDeleteWhat genetic algorithm? Could you paste me one here?
Additionally, you make is sound like there is some control process governing genetic variation. Genetic variation is random with respect to need. Selection propagates useful traits.
For example, dose a culture with antibiotics the bacteria lacks resistance to, and most or all die. One may, by chance, have mutations that allow survival. They will grow to dominate in the presence of antibiotic.
"Would they show signs of degeneration, like losing functions to survive?"
Loss-of-function is the term you are looking for. There are also gain-of-function mutations. Both have been observed to increase fitness.
"what are antibiotics actually doing to the cellular mechanisms of the bugs it is killing?"
We know this for all classes of antibiotics. Some target cell wall synthesis, others protein production, some DNA replication. We even know the mechanisms of resistance, and how that mechanism evolved. Second and third generation antibiotics are designed around the resistance mechanisms. Some evil evolutionists have even taken to predicting how drug resistance might evolve, in order to defeat it in advance.
Oh, hey-benefit of evolution scores again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antibiotics
"Predicting the emergence of antibiotic resistance by directed evolution and structural analysis"
http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v8/n3/full/nsb0301_238.html
Grant: And here we go... when in trouble pretend "evolution" only refers to speciation and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteRight and Darwinists when challenged to provide empirical evidence will fall back on variations over time, and avoid the “fact like gravity is a fact” of UCA. RM and variation does not depend on the Darwinian myth.
Wow, that's quite a polemic! Perhaps it's your writing style, but it comes across as quite angry. Perhaps it will get the faithful all stirred-up but it terms of actual content, you don't really have much to say do you, other than that you think evolution is "pathetic". Perhaps you should find a pulpit you can use this Sunday to carry on your tirade.
ReplyDelete(p.s. Your facts about evolutionists being fairly represented in those movies are quite wrong. What you are saying is you agree the way they were portrayed; Dawkins, Eugenie Scott not only felt they were deceived since they weren't told what the movie was about, but felt their interviews were far from fairly edited).
RobertC Evolution defines modern biology. You can't isolate medical accomplishments and say they weren't impacted by the rest of the field. Phylogenetics and the use of model organisms, for example, only makes sense in the case of common descent.
ReplyDeleteFirst Darwinists have completely distorted the word model for the purpose of deception. A model is supposed to be representative of object that it is trying to imitate. In fact Darwinian models are nothing more than jargons used to deceive people into thinking that there is some evolutionary relatedness. A mouse is not a model of a human being. Finding bits and pieces of common design between organisms do not make an ape your daddy. Medical science owes nothing to Darwinism. It didn’t need it before and certainly don’t need it after Darwin.
@teleological blog: "Right and Darwinists when challenged to provide empirical evidence will fall back on variations over time...
ReplyDeleteOr, they'll fall back on the... you know... empirical evidence:
http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-1-dating-methods.html
If you would care to contest anything in those seven posts (that link is to #1) feel free to comment.
"A mouse is not a model of a human being."
ReplyDeleteNot completely, but for many processes and diseases, it is. For some diseases, yeast is a relevant model organism. For others, plants are. Common descent predicts conservation that allows their use.
You make a compelling argument for why design hypotheses do not make this prediction.
"Finding bits and pieces of common design between organisms do not make an ape your daddy."
Not bits and pieces-huge swaths of identity and similarity, punctuated by key differences. Why did the designer make its 'special creation' from used bits in other organisms? Why arrange creation in such a way that gives the appearance of common descent, particularly when some differences have no bearing on function?
"Medical science owes nothing to Darwinism. It didn’t need it before and certainly don’t need it after Darwin."
Statement without support. I notice you haven't even tried to refute the specific examples I gave above.
Grant:
ReplyDelete====
Name these mechanisms please.
====
Evolutionists should really try learning biology first. They are incredulous at what is not even controversial (except amongst evolutionists). Environmental pressures induce increased mutation rates and adaptive mutations. Adaptation is not blind to need, in spite of evolutionary theory, and in spite of the opposition of evolutionists to such findings. For instance, LexA is a protein involved in such pathways and LexA inhibition has been a successful strategy in mitigating attainment of antibiotic resistance.
====
"and not relevant to the large-scale change hypothesized by evolution. "
And here we go... when in trouble pretend "evolution" only refers to speciation and nothing else.
====
This is a typical discussion with an evolutionist. "When in trouble"? Rather than have a normal conversation, the evolutionist raises the usual canards. The only "trouble" here is the evolutionist's ignorance of biology and inability to hold a normal conversation.
Next we have: "pretend 'evolution' only refers to speciation and nothing else." More absurdity. I said not such thing, but too often with evolutionists this is what you get. I guess if a person holds that an absurd, unsupported theory is a fact, then what can you expect.
RobertC:
ReplyDeleteRight on cue. For those who may have thought I was exaggerating and generalizing, here we have Robert confirming the evolutionary mind
===
Complex? Isn't biology complex? I suppose in the mind of ID, evolution doesn't produce complexity,
===
Ah, no Robert, that would be in the mind of evolutionists, remember? It was evolutionists who opposed these findings, or is that all forgotten now?
====
Such as? What mechanism of drug resistance is at odds with evolution?
====
Hilarious. First they oppose science, then they claim they predicted it all along.
===
"not relevant to the large-scale change hypothesized by evolution."
Ha! I didn't know evolution only predicts large scale changes.
===
Of course I didn't say that, but what does that matter. Amazing how simple logic escapes evolutionists. As with Grant, an obvious strawman is constructed. Aren't evolutionists ever embarassed at their absurdities?
Apparently CH you are as woefully inept at using an internet search engine as you are at the evolutionary sciences. Here, let me help
ReplyDeletepractical uses of evolution theory
When you go on these ridiculous anti-science rants you have all the credibility of a guy at the airport, addressing a convention of pilots and aerospace engineers, with planes taking off and flying overhead, screaming that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.
Rob: Complex? Isn't biology complex? I suppose in the mind of ID, evolution doesn't produce complexity,
ReplyDelete===
CH: Ah, no Robert, that would be in the mind of evolutionists, remember? It was evolutionists who opposed these findings, or is that all forgotten now?
Evolutionists predicted evolution doesn't produce complexity and ID did? What?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rob: Such as? What mechanism of drug resistance is at odds with evolution?
CH: Hilarious. First they oppose science, then they claim they predicted it all along.
Non sequitur. Embarrass me and name one. What mechanism of drug resistance is non evolved. Which drug resistant disease did the designer bless us with (jk).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RC, quoting CH "not relevant to the large-scale change hypothesized by evolution."
Ha! I didn't know evolution only predicts large scale changes.
CH: Of course I didn't say that, but what does that matter.
You did-you said the changes in antibiotic resistance are not relevant to the large-scale changes predicted by evolution, implying the only thing relevant to evolution is large scale change, and stating that antibiotic resistance is non-evolutionary.
"Evolutionists should really try learning biology first."
ReplyDeleteWhat un-Christian arrogance!
Name me a single biologist who has published a single paper in the PRIMARY literature in the last year who agrees with you about evolution.
Just one.
"They are incredulous at what is not even controversial (except amongst evolutionists). Environmental pressures induce increased mutation rates and adaptive mutations."
Not the proportion of adaptive to maladaptive ones. If you have done experiments that contradict the famous Luria-Delbruck experiment, why don't you publish them on your blog instead of quote-mining Time magazine?
"Adaptation is not blind to need, in spite of evolutionary theory, and in spite of the opposition of evolutionists to such findings."
So you say, but you don't produce any evidence.
"For instance, LexA is a protein involved in such pathways and LexA inhibition has been a successful strategy in mitigating attainment of antibiotic resistance."
Ooooh, you can read Wikipedia. That in no way contradicts the data of Luria and Delbruck, though.
For the bystanders:
1) There are stress-sensing pathways that can increase mutation rates.
2) Dr. Hunter is trying to deceive you into thinking that these increases are making mutations nonrandom with respect to fitness.
"….The only "trouble" here is the evolutionist's ignorance of biology and inability to hold a normal conversation."
Right, as though you've done any publishable biology (evolutionary or non-evolutionary) in the last ten years. You're afraid to do any biology at all, right?
Name these mechanisms please.
ReplyDelete====
Evolutionists should really try learning biology first.
Well gosh... teach me.
I even have a subject you can start on. Teach me all about one of these mechanisms not predicted by evolution that contributes to antibiotic resistance.
Environmental pressures induce increased mutation rates and adaptive mutations. Adaptation is not blind to need, in spite of evolutionary theory, and in spite of the opposition of evolutionists to such findings.
I'm sorry... WHAT environmental pressures induce WHAT increased mutations? Try a little specificity and show me the causal link between the nature of the pressure applied and a *specific* mutation being produced as a result.
For instance, LexA is a protein involved in such pathways and LexA inhibition has been a successful strategy in mitigating attainment of antibiotic resistance.
More hand waving and misdirection. Show me how any applied environmental pressure CAUSED a SPECIFIC mutation rather than just increasing the rate of random mutations and/or selecting for a trait that appeared in the population the way environmental factors and selection always operate.
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete"Environmental pressures induce increased mutation rates and adaptive mutations."
So you accept mutation can lead to adaptation? That would be, umm, evolution? Where you are wrong is implying these are directly adaptive.
LexA is part of the SOS response in bacteria. It is part of a somewhat sloppy mechanism to repair DNA, not a targeted adaptation machine.
It does have the effect of increasing mutation rate, which ends up being adaptive in the case of antibiotics that damage DNA. But the mutations are random with respect to need. In other words, drug induces DNA damage, sloppy repair leads to more variation, which yield greater diversity for natural selection to act on. Drug resistant clones pop up.
Inhibition of Mutation and Combating the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030176
RobertC Common descent predicts conservation that allows their use.
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of self delusional assumptions that Darwinists believe that they are practicing real science. Predictions of similar pathology due to similarities between species are not a necessity of your Darwinian myth. A design centric view of science would expect/predict to see the same thing. The truth remains that different species are not “models” of each other. They may have “isolated similarities” that can serve as an indicator of how another species may behave.
RobertC Not bits and pieces-huge swaths of identity and similarity, punctuated by key differences.
Please stop pretending that you know more than you really do. Do you have perfect alignment in every putative homologous genes? Intron/exon? Control genes? Regulatory genes? Junk that is not junk? You can’t even build a bacteria without copying someone else’s homework.
RobertC Why did the designer make its 'special creation' from used bits in other organisms? Why arrange creation in such a way that gives the appearance of common descent, particularly when some differences have no bearing on function?
Your assumptions are only valid looking through the jaundice eye of Darwinian evolution. Who said they are from used bits? Who said there is the appearance of common descent? So in the you absence of knowledge you fill in the gap with Darwinian fairytales?
RobertC Statement without support. I notice you haven't even tried to refute the specific examples I gave above.
What? Do you expect me to prove a negative? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Darwinian evolution contribute anything to medical science. I am not going to make up so fairytale like Darwinists do just to refute it. If you have some Darwinian fairytale that you want to put forth to get it debunked go ahead.
Teleo-since you didn't bother to look, here:
ReplyDeleteDrug cycling to slow the resistance of drug resistant HIV and antibiotic resistant bacteria is based on the understanding of how these resistances are evolved.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120478.php
Deep homology suggests functional pathways to probe human diseases such as autism and cancer in diverse model organisms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27gene.html?pagewanted=all
Directed evolution produces useful products for industry, particularly enzyme catalysis.
http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v5/n8
Predicting the evolution of antibiotic resistance
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v2/n5/abs/nrmicro888.html
Predicting the emergence of antibiotic resistance by directed evolution and structural analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224569
(and combating it in advance.
More:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
"Predictions of similar pathology due to similarities between species are not a necessity of your Darwinian myth"
ReplyDeleteExcept when the model organisms are developed not due to the similarity between species, or their function, but by recognition of conserved modules via deep homology. Read the NYT article I linked. When ID makes such a useful prediction, let me know.
"Do you have perfect alignment in every putative homologous genes?"
Total ignorance. Even you and I wouldn't perfectly align in our genome (hence the use of DNA in forensics!).
Evolution, of course, does not predict perfect alignment. We see differences that allow clustering into nested hierarchies, that are indicative of common descent.
Inform yourself, if you wish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
RobertC Total ignorance. Even you and I wouldn't perfectly align in our genome (hence the use of DNA in forensics!).
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who is bent on displaying your ignorance. First it is not impossible for 2 human beings to have an identical allele sequence. But it is obvious what I was talking about was in the context of comparative genomics, where 2 putative orthologous genes from a genomic database are compared. It is by comparing these genetic sequences that scientists determine orthology. The question is how much identity would you think you need for 2 genes from different species to be considered orthologous? Well that is arbitrary, for more distant species like humans and yeast the cutoff value would be relative large, which means the percent identity would be low. BTW, DNA forensic does not work off of coding DNA and it certain does not check for sequence alignment. Now why am I spending so much time educating RobertC besides illustrating his ignorance? Because this is important before I debunk the next Darwinian myth.
RobertC Deep homology suggests functional pathways to probe human diseases such as autism and cancer in diverse model organisms.
RobertC reference some NYTimes article that states researchers found new genes in the human genome that regulates angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels. The Darwinian hype is that they found these human genes by looking at related genes in yeast. This is suppose to be a big deal because we all know that yeast don’t have blood vessels, so this is clear evidence for common ancestry and Darwinian evolution. This is what RobertC and the article called “deep homology”.
You’ve got to love these Darwinists because they are so good at this. They run the same con game over and over but just change the names. There is nothing deep and homologous about this cheap trick. The fact to the matter is that the genes they are comparing with in humans and yeast are not the same genes. They picked a bunch of predetermined orthologous genes from a genomic database and do a pattern matching to narrow down the list in the hope of finding this so called model gene. Now within this smaller set of genes they already know that 3 of these mouse genes are responsible for angiogenesis. So they start experimenting on the yeast genes grown in the lovastatin drug. Guess what they found genes that actually create new blood vessels like the genes in the mouse. NOT! No what they found was that some of these genes affected its growth rate. Wow that’s obviously doing the same thing there. In an ape’s eye maybe. So now the Darwinist claim that they can use these yeast genes as a model for the angiogenesis genes in a mouse and some other related set of genes in humans. This is just dumb.
According to Darwinian mythology, any similarity is evidence of common ancestry. For the Darwinist it doesn’t matter what the question is the only possible correct answer is Darwinism. From a design perspective this is perfectly reasonable that similar designs will have similar functions and prone to be affected by the same drugs. A design theorist will not make the stupid claim that we’ve found blood vessel related gene in yeast. This is another example of Darwinists trying to claim credit that they don’t deserve. Medical science can function just fine without all these idiotic Darwinian hocus-pocus.
"So now the Darwinist claim that they can use these yeast genes as a model for the angiogenesis genes in a mouse and some other related set of genes in humans. This is just dumb. ... A design theorist will not make the stupid claim that we’ve found blood vessel related gene in yeast."
ReplyDeleteThat's the ID response, isn't it. Science is dumb. Medicines have, and will be produced by such approaches based on evolutionary insights. ID advocates tell us these approaches are dumb. Thanks for proving the point that design hypotheses are not only useless (no functional predictions), but destructive. You will bring to the table preconceived notions about what is 'dumb' because of your feelings towards the designer. Your faith therefore blinds you to many possibilities.
"But it is obvious what I was talking about "
Rarely
"BTW, DNA forensic does not work off of coding DNA and it certain does not check for sequence alignment."
Right, but you listed everything down to 'junk.' If all regions were exactly identical, RFLP or STR would fail. My point stands. And sequence identity across species and time in evolution is not and never has been never predicted-you had asked: "Do you have perfect alignment in every putative homologous genes?" Which still astonishes me
"Well that is arbitrary, for more distant species like humans and yeast the cutoff value would be relative large, which means the percent identity would be low."
This criticism doesn't really do anything for you. It is like saying there are different ways to fit a curve, therefore statistics is false. E-values, for example, are used as cutoffs. It is quite possible to construct nested hierarchies with generous E-values. See Douglass Theobald's methods section for example.
teleological blog: It is by comparing these genetic sequences that scientists determine orthology. The question is how much identity would you think you need for 2 genes from different species to be considered orthologous?
ReplyDeleteWhat matters is the fit to the nested hierarchy. Distance is an important metric of common descent, but only in the context of the phylogenetic tree.
teleological blog: According to Darwinian mythology, any similarity is evidence of common ancestry.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Convergence has been an important consideration in evolutionary biology since Darwin.
teleological blog: From a design perspective this is perfectly reasonable that similar designs will have similar functions and prone to be affected by the same drugs.
Design does not explain the nested hierarchy, and is contrary to how known designers work.
teleological blog's argument can be rephrased thus: "Just because A and B are homologous doesn't necessarily imply evolution — it could be the result of design!"
ReplyDeleteWell, no duh — anything could be the result of "design" as defined by IDists.
To clarify, teleological blog, can you explain something? Do you think it is true or not that scientists have "found new genes in the human genome that regulate angiogenesis". As far as I can tell, your answer seems to be "not", because the similar genes in yeast don't do that, so to suppose they do in humans is simply nonsense.
RobertC That's the ID response, isn't it. Science is dumb.
ReplyDeleteI hope you are not illiterate, because I never said that. I said Darwinists/Darwinism is dumb.
Zachriel: What matters is the fit to the nested hierarchy. Distance is an important metric of common descent, but only in the context of the phylogenetic tree.
This is just more Darwinian circular reasoning. You contrive a fictional tree and fictional distance then take disparate organisms and claim that it fits the tree, therefore this is suppose to be evidence for Darwinism. It is a joke. The problem with Darwinists is that you have Darwinism tattoo on your eyeballs and brains.
Lenoxious: Well, no duh — anything could be the result of "design" as defined by IDists.
Darwinism is completely irrelevant to medical science. Any accomplishment in medical science can be done without the assumption of Darwinian religious dogma. Slapping a label on a process does not make it true.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteDarwinism is completely irrelevant to medical science. Any accomplishment in medical science can be done without the assumption of Darwinian religious dogma. Slapping a label on a process does not make it true.
Sure thing TB. That's why the U.S.National Center for Preparedness, Detection, and Control of Infectious Diseases (NCPDCID) relies on evolutionary biology for almost every function it performs, from developing new vaccines to understanding the evolutionary history of diseases like HIV and H5N1 to predicting the future evolutionary pathways of pathogens.
NCPDCID home
And why so many research studies like this are published
Evolutionary analysis of the dynamics of viral infectious disease
Nature Reviews Genetics 10, 540-550 (August 2009)
Abstract: Many organisms that cause infectious diseases, particularly RNA viruses, mutate so rapidly that their evolutionary and ecological behaviours are inextricably linked. Consequently, aspects of the transmission and epidemiology of these pathogens are imprinted on the genetic diversity of their genomes. Large-scale empirical analyses of the evolutionary dynamics of important pathogens are now feasible owing to the increasing availability of pathogen sequence data and the development of new computational and statistical methods of analysis. In this Review, we outline the questions that can be answered using viral evolutionary analysis across a wide range of biological scales.
link
..because medicine has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
TB wrote:
ReplyDelete"But it is obvious what I was talking about was in the context of comparative genomics, where 2 putative orthologous genes from a genomic database are compared. It is by comparing these genetic sequences that scientists determine orthology."
Gee, TB, as someone who does this, I see straight through your dishonesty here. Scientists don't use synteny, for example?
What about empirical tests for orthology? Can you engage your brain enough to see a blindingly obvious one?
"The question is how much identity would you think you need for 2 genes from different species to be considered orthologous?"
Nucleotide or amino acid? What about synteny? Your question is complete hooey without any units.
"Well that is arbitrary, for more distant species like humans and yeast the cutoff value would be relative large, which means the percent identity would be low."
Nope. For the human/yeast pair, there are a lot fewer orthologs. The nested hierarchies tell us a lot, too.
RobertC: That's the ID response, isn't it. Science is dumb.
ReplyDelete"I hope you are not illiterate, because I never said that. I said Darwinists/Darwinism is dumb."
You said ongoing scientific research with bearing on human health is 'dumb'. And your attempt to force the false dichotomy between science and evolutionary biology is failing hilariously. Oh, hey-what is the useful prediction ID has made, that results in tangible progress, medicine, anything? Right.
In sharp contrast, you've already explained how ID would never advocate these successful approaches: "A design theorist will not make the stupid claim that we’ve found blood vessel related gene in yeast."
Indeed. The designer wouldn't do that. Why would genes related to angiogenesis be found in yeast (other than that they have been co-opted to new function by evolution). Should we examine cancer genes in yeast and plants, retardation genes in plants, or anything in worms? What is predicted to be useful by design inference?
"Darwinism is completely irrelevant to medical science."
You've already denied the ability of deep homology to assign function to genes, and discover model organisms for disease. These predictions have been empirically confirmed, and produced tangible results and yet you call them stupid.
Also, you have no analysis for the other 5 or so links presenting just a few medical and industrial benefits evolution has brought that I list above. Fail.
teleological blog: This is just more Darwinian circular reasoning. You contrive a fictional tree and fictional distance then take disparate organisms and claim that it fits the tree, therefore this is suppose to be evidence for Darwinism.
ReplyDeleteThe phlogenetic tree is hardly fictional, but is one of the most fundamental patterns in biology.
"If you have an organism with mammary glands, we can predict it will have a complex eukaryote cell structure with organelles, ingest other organisms for nourishment, have bilateral symmetry, integument, alimentary canal, a bony head at one end with an array of sense organs, vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, jaws, ribs, four limbs during at least at some stage of life, neck, neocortex, endothermic, internal fertilization, four-chambered heart, lungs with alveoli and a muscular diaphragm, two eyes, three ear bones in each of two ears, hair or at least hair follicles at some stage of life, sebaceous glands, most will have heterodont dentition, etc.
"All that from teats. It's not a trivial correlation, but one of the most important patterns in biology."