|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2008 : 17:39:31
|
Uncommondescent is always good for a laugh. DaveScots latest post can be seen here. The really funny part is the comments. Comment 3, where DLH shows his inability to use google scholar, and DaveScot comment 5, where he shows his complete lack of grasp on what Google Scholar actually is. I thought I'd post a comment there for once, awaiting moderation now. I don't think I'll post there more, but I really couldn't resist posting this time.
My response: I can find the citation to the article on both google scholar and pubmed easily. Keywords Universal genome AND Sherman.
And DaveScot, Google scholar does not equal “evolutionary biologists”. |
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2008 : 03:35:52 [Permalink]
|
I found a paragraph in PaV's post interesting/funny: | Isn't it clear that if the Darwinists would open up their labs and their peer-reviewed journals to ID thinking, that ID would generate more and more testable hypotheses? But the Darwinists will have to open up their minds before this will happen; so, lots of luck with that one. |
He/she wants everyone's brains to fall out because that's how open-minded it would have to get to promote supernatural hoo-hah in science: set up chaples in the labs and the journals can include a copy of The Watch Tower with each publication. Or just say God The Designer done it and take the rest of the week off.
What these chowderheads fail to grasp is that if Joey won't lend you his bicycle, there is nothing stopping you from getting a set of pedals of your own, assuming that you know how to ride a bicycle -- which is why Joey won't let you anywhere his 'cause obviously you don't.
Indeed, if there were anything to their fatious nonsense, it would have been rigoriously documented quite a while ago, and Darwin would have gone down in history as just another crackpot. But such is not the case; Darwin is honored as the father of evolutionary theory and the crackpots hang out at the Creationist sites and whine about Joey's Bicycle.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 08:01:02 [Permalink]
|
The ID crowd seems to think that "front loading" is a testable hypothesis and in a sense it is. The problem is that it has to be possible to evaluate scientific hypotheses against one another to find out which one best matches the evidence. So, just how would an IDist justify that one of "front loading", "God-did-it-6000-years-ago", "everything popped into existence two seconds ago", "the designer has constantly been tinkering" or an infinite number of other ID hypotheses is more plausible than the other? I'd be keen to know.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
| Edited by - Hawks on 08/22/2008 08:02:30 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 08:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Well, it seems my comment is not going to be published. Can't say I'm surprised.
Front-loading would mean (if I scanned the article correctly, haven't had time to read it yet) that certain genetic sequences would already be present in the first animals present on earth, even if these sequences (genes or whatever) would be useless for that animal at that time. So a primordial bacteria would already have all the genetic material available to evolve into a jellyfish or a wolf or a human being. Evolution would then be a switching on and off of the correct genes and perhaps some slight modifications to these, rather than the evolution of whole new genes. It might be testable by comparative gene analysis, and apparantly Sherman proposes some testable cases. Don't know about that yet, I would need to read though the article more carefully. I might do that later, first a friend asked me to read and comment on her thesis and that takes priority. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2008 : 09:05:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I found a paragraph in PaV's post interesting/funny: Isn't it clear that if the Darwinists would open up their labs and their peer-reviewed journals to ID thinking, that ID would generate more and more testable hypotheses? But the Darwinists will have to open up their minds before this will happen; so, lots of luck with that one. |
Is there a crackpot theorist out there who doesn't claim that the reason they are being dismissed is because there is a great conspiracy to hide the truth? Arguments from incredulity and an extremely speculative hypothesis that lacks falsifiability will never meet the criteria for publication in any respected peer reviewed journal. But they will drone on about the "Darwinist" conspiracy, completely unencumbered by facts. Like all of the other crackpot theories that have come down the pike, it's the same as it ever was... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 09:08:41 [Permalink]
|
But then; wouldn't one notice such genes in today's bacteria?
As it stands today; bacteria have very little 'junk DNA' and even less pseudogenes while eukaryotes have many of these (that makes sense from a classical evolution point of view as the relative cost of extra DNA is more important for prokaryotes than multi-cellular eukaryotes).
If the 'front loading' hypothesis was correct, we should see the exact opposite of that. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 10:01:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
If the 'front loading' hypothesis was correct, we should see the exact opposite of that. |
Nah, because the only "perfect" creatures were Adam and Eve. Humans have less degraded DNA than other, less-perfect creations. Besides, "junk DNA" is badly named, because as more research is done, we keep finding functions for it.
Seriously, front-loading is indistinguishable from magic, so any set of observations is explainable by it.
And Kil, don't forget that these people learn, from a young age, that being persecuted means that they're on their way to Heaven, so when they're not being persecuted, they have to invent persecution to feel good about themselves again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 11:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Did Adam & Eve have belly-buttons, and if so, as they were unencumbered by the travails of childhood and pangs of birth, and therefore an umbilical cord, why? And if not, could they still be considered placental mammals? Also, if so, as they are alleged to be in the image of God, does that deity have a naval and again, why?
Placental mammal -- the image of God? 
You gotta love ID creationism. It lends itself so well to comedy & parody, & the various sarcasms any mildly deranged imagination might come up with.
ID is no more than creationism done speculative, which makes it even more fun than a half-baked Ham. It is apologetics gone half-assed, religion in false denial. It is an attempt to encourage thought in those who do not think outside of certain parameters, and discourage critical thought from others at the same time, just as the Wedge Document would have it. Thus, they march in lock-step exactly like the YECs, but cloak their chains in jargon.
The only scientific gig they are qualified for is either janitor or experimental lab rat, and it is open to question if any of them can handle a broom. They cry out stridently for credibility but have nothing credible to offer beyond verbiage and a cheap propaganda flick that had nothing for anyone but mirth at such nonsense. They strive for attention and in this they are moderately successful, as those of my ilk pay them a plenitude of it. More sober individuals pretty much ignore their foolishness until they come up with something super-silly, or they (gleefully) have to go to court against them. Either way the results are entirely predictable. 
The only question I have, really, is: What next?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 12:16:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Simon
If the 'front loading' hypothesis was correct, we should see the exact opposite of that. |
Nah, because the only "perfect" creatures were Adam and Eve. Humans have less degraded DNA than other, less-perfect creations. Besides, "junk DNA" is badly named, because as more research is done, we keep finding functions for it. |
Yes... and no.
It is true that many pieces of the genome we once believed belonged to the junk DNA now have a known function. This is particularly true for the small non coding RNAs.
However, there is still plenty sequences whose function, if any, is as yet unknown.
But, more importantly, there also are quite a bit of DNA which have been identified and, indeed, are junk: Mobile genetic elements and ERV, pseudogenes...
Just transposons and retrotransposons constitute around 50% of our genome.
(Sorry if it sounded arrogant; not on purpose). |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 12:44:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
(Sorry if it sounded arrogant; not on purpose). |
It only sounds arrogant because you can't possibly know God's plan, and so to call any bit of DNA - especially human DNA - "junk" is simply hubris! It's not that those bits you mention have no purpose, it's just that you have no idea what God's purpose is for them!
[/creationist]  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 14:27:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Did Adam & Eve have belly-buttons, and if so, as they were unencumbered by the travails of childhood and pangs of birth, and therefore an umbilical cord, why? And if not, could they still be considered placental mammals? Also, if so, as they are alleged to be in the image of God, does that deity have a naval and again, why? |
Adam and Eve are not mammals...they are people. God created them with belly buttons (and yes they were both innies) so they wouldn't have to answer uncomfortable questions from their children. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 17:07:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
But then; wouldn't one notice such genes in today's bacteria?
As it stands today; bacteria have very little 'junk DNA' and even less pseudogenes while eukaryotes have many of these (that makes sense from a classical evolution point of view as the relative cost of extra DNA is more important for prokaryotes than multi-cellular eukaryotes).
If the 'front loading' hypothesis was correct, we should see the exact opposite of that.
|
I fail to see why you would expect to see anything in particular if front loading was correct. Loss of genes and acquisition of genes through horizontal gene transfer are examples of (micro)evolution that even hardcord evolution-deniers accept. Then add the possibility that the "designer" might have intended for macroevolution to have ended a long time ago.
And even if it was possible to devise a perfect front loading hypothesis that really matches the evidence, why would that hypothesis be any better than "god did it all yesterday"? (That question was not for you, Simon, but for anyone wishing to defend the position that front loading is a good scientific hypothesis that somehow follows from ID). Come to think of it, shouldn't goddidit always be the answer as it is more "parsimonous" than any of the other ID alternatives. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 07:07:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by Simon
But then; wouldn't one notice such genes in today's bacteria?
As it stands today; bacteria have very little 'junk DNA' and even less pseudogenes while eukaryotes have many of these (that makes sense from a classical evolution point of view as the relative cost of extra DNA is more important for prokaryotes than multi-cellular eukaryotes).
If the 'front loading' hypothesis was correct, we should see the exact opposite of that.
|
I fail to see why you would expect to see anything in particular if front loading was correct. Loss of genes and acquisition of genes through horizontal gene transfer are examples of (micro)evolution that even hardcord evolution-deniers accept. Then add the possibility that the "designer" might have intended for macroevolution to have ended a long time ago.
And even if it was possible to devise a perfect front loading hypothesis that really matches the evidence, why would that hypothesis be any better than "god did it all yesterday"? (That question was not for you, Simon, but for anyone wishing to defend the position that front loading is a good scientific hypothesis that somehow follows from ID). Come to think of it, shouldn't goddidit always be the answer as it is more "parsimonous" than any of the other ID alternatives.
|
But; for front loading to be even envisaged, the ancestral bacteria should harbour most of the 30.000 genes the human genome have, many of which, of course, are of no use for the bacterium.
In reality, the average bacterial genome is only one 10th of that value, with very little genes which aren't directly useful for the bacterium.
Furthermore; of these 3000 genes, a good number is typical of bacteria and are not found in eukaryotes... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 07:53:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by filthy
Did Adam & Eve have belly-buttons, and if so, as they were unencumbered by the travails of childhood and pangs of birth, and therefore an umbilical cord, why? And if not, could they still be considered placental mammals? Also, if so, as they are alleged to be in the image of God, does that deity have a naval and again, why? |
Adam and Eve are not mammals...they are people. God created them with belly buttons (and yes they were both innies) so they wouldn't have to answer uncomfortable questions from their children.
|
Aw contrary, mes ami. Both, or at least Eve, had mammary glands and for some perverse reason, Adam had nipples. Therefore, both had the misfortune of being mammals who suffered from talking snake hallucinations as well as a fruit fetish.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 15:27:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
But; for front loading to be even envisaged, the ancestral bacteria should harbour most of the 30.000 genes the human genome have, many of which, of course, are of no use for the bacterium.
In reality, the average bacterial genome is only one 10th of that value, with very little genes which aren't directly useful for the bacterium.
Furthermore; of these 3000 genes, a good number is typical of bacteria and are not found in eukaryotes...
|
I find it very reasonable that the designer could have designed it so that the bacteria of today would have lost all of the genes it would no longer require - say, because they no longer need to macromutate. Conversely, I also find it reasonable that the designer could have designed it so that the bacteria of today should have kept LOTS of useless genes because of a future need to macromutate. Why would ID in general and front loading specifically prefer one of the above scenarios above the other?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Google Scholar, always hard to use
