RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 317 318 319 320 321 [322] 323 324 325 326 327 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,05:07   

Natural causation?



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,09:27   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 26 2008,02:57)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,22:36)
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 25 2008,18:28)
† †  
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 25 2008,19:58)
† †
Well, I'd suggest that isn't really a point of disagreement. Indeed, I think you are exactly right.

Point taken. I guess I do agree after all.

Yeesh. You two need to get a room.

Run along now Arden, the adults are talking. †If it will make you feel better, go ahead and get yourself a juice box from the fridge.

Yeah, I can understand that you two wouldn't want anyone else around for like the next half hour or so.

PS: Tell your mom her juice sucks.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,10:01   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,15:27)
[SNIP]

PS: Tell your mom her juice sucks.

Wait. You're still talking about the boxes of juice in the fridge, right?

Louis

P.S. I'll get me coat.

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,10:08   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 26 2008,08:01)
†  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,15:27)
[SNIP]

PS: Tell your mom her juice sucks.

Wait. You're still talking about the boxes of juice in the fridge, right?

Louis

P.S. I'll get me coat.

Louis, you old gaandu...

[puts arm around Louis's shoulder in a gesture of warm camaraderie]

...trust me, your mom's juice doesn't suck at all.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,10:21   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,16:08)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 26 2008,08:01)
† †
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,15:27)
[SNIP]

PS: Tell your mom her juice sucks.

Wait. You're still talking about the boxes of juice in the fridge, right?

Louis

P.S. I'll get me coat.

Louis, you old gaandu...

[puts arm around Louis's shoulder in a gesture of warm camaraderie]

...trust me, your mom's juice doesn't suck at all.

That's not what your mum said....

....Oh I can't be bothered.

I'm off to the pub. Hopefully. If I get an Evening Pass from She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,14:25   

Sorry to derail but this has annoyed me. I have been absent for a while and only read it today.


 
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,11:14)


lol..you're kidding right?  Louis, Dave, et. al. are always bathering on about "willful ignorance", etc., etc., etc., etc..  The only thing that would make them happy would be if I were to listen to what they say and chuck the rest of my questions in the trash.  Kinda like Stephen Elliot did.   Yeah, well I'm not Stephen.  I still have questions.  Lots of them.  I always will.


FTK:- Do you have any idea how insulting that remark is? Do you care? Please listen. I have never "chucked an idea/question in the trash", I still have questions. The thing  is FtK that I came to this argument on the same side as you.

I just followed the links and arguments presented by both sides. It does not take long to realise who is not providing evidence (well to be fair it probably took me over a year). That is not the fault of science it was the fault of me wanting to believe something and demanding unfair weight of evidence.

If you had a shred of intellectual honesty you would have realised that by now. How can you claim that a "scientific theory" that will not examine the age of the Earth, Sun or Universe is scientific? Can you not see how ridiculous that looks?

Can you not see how pathetic it looks that you or (almost) any creationist can post here without censorship. While (almost) all ID sites use banning willy-nilly or prevent comments.

Can you not see how pathetic it looks when ID sites claim that the lack of comments is to prevent the overwhelming negative comments and then claim massive support as a %?

Can you not see a lie?

You also made it sound as though I changed sides on a whim. You are wrong. It took me a great deal (well a bit) of questioning to see who was more honest.

Just to be clear to all. I did not "change sides" I just sided with the people that do work to try and show they may be wrong. I do not respect people that twist evidence.

That is my opinion! I like people that argue amongst themselves about what is correct far more than people that twist to accommodate diverse opinion.

It has been a long and painful road but worth it. You just dismiss it as a whim.


Sorry for the crap formatting.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,14:55   

Stephen, if you don't mind, Bill, Carlson, Louis and I are trying to insult each other. If you want to join in, fine, but please, don't try and change the subject. †:angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,15:21   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,14:55)
Stephen, if you don't mind, Bill, Carlson, Louis and I are trying to insult each other. If you want to join in, fine, but please, don't try and change the subject. †:angry:

Trying? Yes, but not all of us are succeeding. Truth is Arden that you are kinda like the annoying kid brother that we are forced to let hang around with us. †Lame in the extreme, but we need to pay your mother back somehow.

Speaking of you and your mother.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,18:09   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,14:55)
Stephen, if you don't mind, Bill, Carlson, Louis and I are trying to insult each other. If you want to join in, fine, but please, don't try and change the subject.  :angry:

How the hell could I insult Louis? That is akin to trying to paint a turd a dirty colour.  ;-)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,18:09   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 26 2008,21:21)
[SNIP]

Lame in the extreme, but we need to pay your mother back somehow.

[SNIP]

Yeah. Ever since the bitch stopped taking food stamps, she's had ideas above her station.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,22:26   

Okay....Tom writes:
† †
Quote
Many many human diseases appear to be related to specific chromosomal inversions. A lot of these are developmental disorders and/or varieties of cancer.

We can figure out which genes are the "drivers" for various diseases if we can map the origins of the duplications within the primate lineage. In particular, we'd like to know:
1. the rate of duplication events for various classes of duplication;
2. the time of origin of a particular duplication;
3. which copy is 'ancestral';
4. and so forth.


IMHO, similar designs will have similar points of failure, just like cars with similar designs have similar problems. †I donít think you need to assume common descent here.

It could also possible that a similar cause created identical flaws in the same set of genes. If so, then attributing the similarity to common descent doesnít make sense, and I think it could possibly be harmful. Fríinstance, what if a retrovirus attacked and damaged genes of a chimp and a human in the same way? †It would be stupid to attribute the similarity of damage to common ancestry. †The concept of common descent †might actually encourage mis-identification of real causes in this case.

Darwinists seemed to think that junk DNA (made of many duplications) was just junk. †Common ancestry had to have attributed to that belief. †They thought it was just a bunch of accidental gene duplications, etc.. †Iíd don't think that considering ďjunk DNAĒ just ďjunkĒ did medical science any good. † A leading figure in world genetics, Prof. John Mattick, claimed that, "the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology".

I googled trying to find some examples of duplications that werenít caused by common ancestry and I found an article about fungi. †Iím wondering if there are some similar examples with humans and other creatures, but Iíll have to save that search for another day.

† †
Quote
The models we use to map these events depends on an accurate phylogeny of primates. To the extent that fossil evidence can be used to refine the timing of particular events, and the limits to certain critical population parameters, that evidence contributes to the accuracy of the phylogeny.

So: hominid fossil evidence can contribute DIRECTLY to the identification of targets for anti-cancer drugs.


Hmmm. †Isnít it just common sense to test drugs on organisms with similar architectures? Again, I donít think we need to assume common descent there. †I mean, like I said in an earlier post, the only way we can accurately compare genes, etc. would be to actually experiment on those living organisms and document what you find. †It only makes sense that those animals with similar make-up would be the ones to use. †We do a lot of testing on mice, which do not resemble us morphologically, but we wouldnít have known that could be possible without actually digging into that little critter and investigating just how itís genetic make-up would be beneficial to us for various types of scientific research. †So, again, if the concept of common descent were non-existent, weíd still be able to consider simliarities and differences of organisms and how that might help us in testing for research purposes. † †

And, truth be told, your argument seems a bit vague. Why does knowing the primate phylogeny tell us anything about which genes cause cancer? Can you try to explain *how* knowing the phylogeny tells us *which genes* cause cancer or how it would help in development of a new cancer treating drug? †I did a quick google and canít find anything in regard to how hominid fossil evidence contributes to drug treatment of cancer, though Iím sure there is something out there. †I sometimes have trouble tracking down scientific articles to support certain assumptions, etc. †And, when I am able to, I often have to read through them umpteenth times in order to figure out what the heck theyíre saying. †But, please refer me to a few if you would, and Iíll try to wade through them.

In regard to creatures who share similarities and the way in which that may benefit science, there are often instances where that type of research has been a colossal failure.

From here:
† †
Quote
Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), has observed, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn't work in humans." The NCI now uses human cancer cells, taken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at combating cancer.


From here:
† †
Quote
Biomedical testing on nonhuman animals like Carrie [a chimpanzee] has never worked, animal tests proved penicillin deadly, strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous. The vast majority of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. Americans have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have yet to replicate human cancer in any animal, let alone close in on a cure. All but a very few diseases are species unique, and the only way to discover cures and create vaccines is through the use of the same species' cells, tissues and organs.

The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology, public health improvements, epidemiology, human clinical research, mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome, not experiments on great apes or other animals. The continued use of nonhuman animals like Carrie as research subjects is jeopardizing the United States' status as the world's leader in health care innovation, a position that guarantees our country's economic strength and protects us from biological terrorism.


From here:
† †
Quote
With respect to chimpanzee use as animal models in biomedical research to gain knowledge of human physiology and pathology, the failures of this approach are legion. When The Chimpanzee Breeding Plan was first proposed by NIH in the mid 1980s, it was publicly criticized by those believing it to be ill-advised on scientific grounds because chimpanzees could and would not model AIDS, on ethical grounds because of the findings by Goodall and others demonstrating the many human characteristics of chimpanzees, and on financial grounds because of the enormous expense of maintaining large chimpanzee colonies. Nevertheless, NIH proceeded with their wrongheaded plan, only to find that chimpanzees, as predicted, were ill-suited for laboratory use for these very scientific, ethical, and financial reasons. It turned out that chimpanzees were not vital to AIDS, malaria, cancer, brain, and behavioral research. The failure was so extensive that in the mid-1990s chimpanzees, despite the initial hype, were completely dropped from AIDS research, creating such a laboratory chimpanzee surplus that euthanasia was (not surprisingly) initially proposed by researchers as a solution.

Even the wisdom of studying chimpanzees to understand human evolution has been called into question. According to Tim D. White, anthropologist at The University of California at Berkeley: "Modern chimps show us the kinds of possibilities that were open to hominids, but the final evidence has to come from fossils and other information at hominid sites." Milford H. Wolpoff, anthropologist at University of Michigan, expresses doubt that living chimps offer a looking glass into the world of early hominids: "I don't think chimps are a good model for hominids. It's not clear that we even know what ancestral chimps were like from 4 to 6 million years ago." Robert J. Blumenschine, anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that living chimps serve up only a partial glimpse of how hominids procured meat. He believes that whereas modern chimps are killers, early hominids were scavengers.20


I guess in respect to a sentence in that last paragraph ďModern chimps show us the kinds of possibilities that were open to hominids, but the final evidence has to come from fossils and other information at hominid sites.", Iím not sure how hominids and other information at those sites would be of much help if the living chimp isnít of help. †I donít know how bone fragments and understanding when those ancestors lived would be more beneficial that using those animals that are architecturally similar (or related in evo. speak).

† †
Quote
This is not a made-up, ex post facto explanation. For more information on some of the methods used, look up Evan Eichler's lab at UW. For examples of the applications, talk to anyone who's been treated for cancer in the last decade or so.

Although I'm not associated with the Eichler lab, I do apply their results to drug discovery efforts. I suspect that patients who get anti-cancer drugs value the effort taken to learn about primate evolution and to allow the approach described above.

The methods do depend on the assumption that all of the organisms being studied are related by common descent. Most methods assume a non-reticulate tree (that is, they assume that there are no instances in which populations rejoin and species merge). This is probably a safe assumption in most cases. In addition, potential variation within the lineage is usually ignored, as is population size, etc.

If you were to deny the concept of common descent and try to recreate the segmental duplication map that I discussed earlier, you would fail hopelessly. It turns out that the trees you get from modern phylogenetic methods often conflict with those that are simply based on similarities among traits. For reasons too complicated to go into here, it's the primate phylogeny--not the similarity tree--that allows you to do the real quantitative analytical work. Furthermore, without common descent the very idea of mapping duplication events among great ape species--including humans--would make no sense.


Like I somewhat indicated above, you should be able to map duplications without reference to common ancestry, just like you can compare texts in different books. †This kind of seems like circular reasoning because you are assuming certain features were the results of duplications in the first place.

Also, you indicated earlier that the timing when humans and apes split is vital to finding cures for various diseases, and that we can get that information from the fossil record. †But, when I googled, the dates seem to vary depending on what article you read. †So, what good is the dating when scientists donít even seem to be sure what the accurate dates are? †Here are a couple articles in this regard.

And, hereís a question...evolutionists often pick out data that works for their arguments, but arenít there examples of of chromosomal features that donít fit the primate phylogeny?? †How would common descent have predicted that?

† †
Quote
Knowing the specific evolutionary relationships is what enables the work I cited earlier. That work would not be possible if all you knew was "humans are more similar to chimps than they are to gorillas".


But arenít humans more similar to gorillas than chimps in some aspects? †What if you ignore the possibility of testing drugs on gorillas in ways that would be more informative because you assume chimps are more closely related? †Iíd think it would be better as a rule to test drugs on similar architectures. †But, what the hell do I know, right?

To *me*, it seems like you (and Bill with his questions) are framing the discussion. †Youíre saying that unless common design can make some clear predictions, then we must adhere to the common descent by default. But why? Common descent has failed in the past. Isnít it usually pretty hard to come up with predictions about what weíll find? Common design doesnít need to make clear predictions for common descent to be wrong.

Now, hereís what Iím going to do. †Iíve spent several days googling and putting my thinking cap on, and I need a little break. †If there is one thing that I *really* want to understand in regard to this debate, it's the question as to why common descent is vital to science.

My other question, of course, is how in the hell everything in nature evolved from a minute molecule that luckily made it's way out of the primordial soup. †So, I'm really glad we're having this discussion, and I'm taking it seriously, so I hope you'll keep your comments informative and skip all the mocking and put downs. †Remember to explain things like you would to someone who doesn't have a extensive background in science so I get what you're saying.†

Iím going to *attempt* to flounce so that things donít get too insane around here and we end up getting off topic or exchanging insults. †I say ďattemptĒ because, as you all know, I have a rather difficult time shutting my trap if I think someone is misrepresenting what Iím saying. †

My hope is that you all stay on topic, and Iíll read everything as time allows. †I rushed to get this done by tonight because I promised my weekend to my husband. †We need to do some landscape work and plant grass seed at that house weíre trying to sell. †We also plan to do a perk test on a piece of land next to it that someone wants to buy (if it perks out well). †

So, hopefully that will keep me busy and out of here for a few days while yaíll let me have it....

Later...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2008,23:45   

How can somebody have been here this long without gaining at least some understanding of the nested hierarchies that are observed in biology?

On second thought, never mind.

Henry

  
didymos



Posts: 1810
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,01:34   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,20:26)
I googled trying to find some examples of duplications that werenít caused by common ancestry and I found an article about fungi. †

So, looks like FTK didn't bother to actually read the abstract:

 
Quote

Phylogenetic analysis of conserved gene families in fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe and brewer's yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae showed that gene duplications have occurred independently in the same families in each of these two lineages to a far greater extent than expected by chance. These species represent distinct lineages of the phylum Ascomycota that independently evolved a "yeast" life cycle with a unicellular thallus that reproduces by budding, and many of the genes that have duplicated independently in the two lineages are known to be involved in crucial aspects of this life cycle. Parallel gene duplication thus appears to have played a role in the independent origin of similar adaptations in the two species. The results indicate that using phylogenetic analysis to test for parallel gene duplication in different species may help in identifying genes responsible for similar but independently evolved adaptations.


Can someone remind me again what phylogenetic analysis is based on?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,02:08   

Quote
Darwinists seemed to think that junk DNA (made of many duplications) was just junk. †Common ancestry had to have attributed to that belief. †They thought it was just a bunch of accidental gene duplications, etc.. †Iíd don't think that considering ďjunk DNAĒ just ďjunkĒ did medical science any good.

This is an ahistorical assertion refuted quite easily here, here, here, and here.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,02:47   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,20:26)
IMHO, similar designs will have similar points of failure, just like cars with similar designs have similar problems. †I donít think you need to assume common descent here.

There's an important difference between similar designs in cars, and similarities in the biological world.

Cars have true chimeras. Your Ford might have a motor developed by Mazda, completely unrelated to the long line of true Ford motors. In fact, different variants of the same model might have one or the other. With "common design", this makes perfect sense: You'd expect an intelligent designer to mix and match the best available parts. This doesn't happen in nature. If you can prove it does, your name will go down in history next to Darwin and Einstein.

Evolution can't reach into the parts bin and pick the best thing for the job. In general, it can only modify what an individual got from it's ancestors (there are exceptions but they don't change the basic picture). What we see in both fossils and genetics fits this picture extremely well. What we see in designed objects like cars does not.

Perhaps you can explain why the designer chose not to mix and match, but instead stuck to the same nested hierarchies that common descent would produce ?

You might also want to be a bit more careful checking into the sites you quote. Some of the ones you quoted on animal testing are of dubious reliability, and definitely not impartial (one even belongs to an organization which has been labeled as domestic terrorists by the DHS, for whatever that is worth.)

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,06:54   

Wow, so much wrong and so little time to correct it all.
Quote
It could also possible that a similar cause created identical flaws in the same set of genes. If so, then attributing the similarity to common descent doesnít make sense, and I think it could possibly be harmful. Fríinstance, what if a retrovirus attacked and damaged genes of a chimp and a human in the same way?  It would be stupid to attribute the similarity of damage to common ancestry.


What, you don't think it would be possible to tell the difference?

Quote
Darwinists seemed to think that junk DNA (made of many duplications) was just junk.  Common ancestry had to have attributed to that belief.  They thought it was just a bunch of accidental gene duplications, etc..


No, as I point out here there are a number of explanations for non-coding DNA.

Quote
Iím not sure how hominids and other information at those sites would be of much help if the living chimp isnít of help.  I donít know how bone fragments and understanding when those ancestors lived would be more beneficial that using those animals that are architecturally similar


Because they are more closely related to us than chimps are.

Quote
Also, you indicated earlier that the timing when humans and apes split is vital to finding cures for various diseases, and that we can get that information from the fossil record.  But, when I googled, the dates seem to vary depending on what article you read.  So, what good is the dating when scientists donít even seem to be sure what the accurate dates are?  Here are a couple articles in this regard.


Your first link doesn't work. Of the three that do, two say the chimp human split occurred 5-7 MYA, while the third says four. Which is correct? At the moment the preponderance of evidence is on the side of the longer date. Hardly illustrates your point, though.

Quote
And, hereís a question...evolutionists often pick out data that works for their arguments, but arenít there examples of of chromosomal features that donít fit the primate phylogeny??


I'm not sure what you are talking about here, could you expand on that?

Quote
But arenít humans more similar to gorillas than chimps in some aspects?


No. The areas where gorillas and humans are similar are shared primitive traits - which means those similarities are also shared by chimps.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,07:54   

FTK: For future reference, the gish gallop doesn't translate well into text.

Edit:
Here's a programmer's take on the retrovirus argument, I'm no biologist by any stretch of the imagination.

For the common design argument working in the context of ERV's in the genome of humans and chimps the following would need to be true:

- Retroviral DNA would have to be inserted in the same place in germ cells of both chimps and humans
- Mutations in the inserted retroviral DNA would have to be synchronized in both lines (which don't interbreed) up until a point where they start to differentiate
- From that point on, the differentiation would continue according to the mutation rates of chimp and human populations

You can either postulate a so far evidence-less mechanism that synchronizes mutations in originally retroviral DNA between species that don't interbreed, which is a major premise to just chuck into the discussion - OR you can look at a mechanism (that would be common descent) that explains the phenomena and as a bonus has extraordinary amounts of physical evidence to its name. Occam's razor.

I would love corrections from the more biologically literate members of this board

Edit2: Speling. Edit3: Clarification.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,08:08   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,23:26)
But arenít humans more similar to gorillas than chimps in some aspects? †What if you ignore the possibility of testing drugs on gorillas in ways that would be more informative because you assume chimps are more closely related? †Iíd think it would be better as a rule to test drugs on similar architectures. †But, what the hell do I know, right?

Your question illustrates the fatal limitations inherent in your suggestion that organisms can be examined and classified as effectively from the assumption of common design as they can from the perspective of common descent. Human beings display similarities to both gorillas and chimps; but which similarities are more important? Which more superficial? How do we decide?

"Common design" provides zero guidance regarding questions such as these. Examination and classification of species absent an understanding of the evolutionary origins of those species - specifically, absent knowledge of the history of descent and divergence that characterized those species - leaves those questions unanswered.

By contrast, knowledge of the pattern of descent - discernible by a variety of independent means (e.g. the derivation of cladograms by means of both morphological and molecular data) - provides a powerful and cogent underlying explanation of the significance of both similarities and differences, one that illuminates current observations and provides predictive power that can guide future research. The research I previously cited illustrates both phases of this illumination and predictive power. In this instance, understanding the pattern of divergence among lineages of great apes (including the hominid line) make clear the significance of both similarities and differences observed between gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs, and human beings.
† † † †  
Quote
To *me*, it seems like you (and Bill with his questions) are framing the discussion. †Youíre saying that unless common design can make some clear predictions, then we must adhere to the common descent by default. But why? Common descent has failed in the past. Isnít it usually pretty hard to come up with predictions about what weíll find? Common design doesnít need to make clear predictions for common descent to be wrong.

Here you again beautifully exemplify both your inaccurate grasp of the evidence and the most fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

1) "Common descent has failed in the past" is simply false. While specific, testable hypotheses regarding specific historical relationships between particular organisms may prove true or false, the overarching framework of common descent proposed by Darwin has been, and continues to be, independently confirmed beyond rational doubt (with provisos regarding horizontal gene transfer among extremely early bacterial forms inserted here.)

2) "Common design doesnít need to make clear predictions for common descent to be wrong" illustrates a poor grasp of scientific reasoning. Common design does need to make predictions to compete with common descent as a scientific theory. Indeed, for one theoretical paradigm to replace another, it must both account for all of the successful predictions of the prior framework AND must make further successful predictions unattainable by the prior framework. But common design makes no predictions whatsoever. Rather, it is left to stir post-hoc rationalizations such as your observation regarding cars with similar design flaws.

What common design does provide is a threadbare armchair within which anti-rational creationists can sit and scratch. That's about it.

(Having said the above, I'm sure Tom Ames can provide a similar, but much better informed, response than the above. I don't presume to speak for him.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,08:28   

FtK

Congrats on avoiding the personal and focusing on the scientific aspects of this debate. I'm impressed with that approach.

But not so impressed with the arguments, or the supporting evidence. Just one small example should suffice. You quote from the Animal Liberation Front site, an organization which has special interest for me since their activities in "liberating" his animals (mice) led directly to the suicide of a scientist who was a graduate school colleague of mine. That site alleged †
Quote
animal tests proved penicillin deadly
. Wrong. From here  
Quote
The story of Sir Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin is well known. In 1929 he discovered a mould growing on a glass dish in his laboratory which appeared to kill the bacteria he was cultivating. In his follow-up studies, the crude penicillin broth that he had extracted from the mould was non-toxic to rabbits and mice (Fleming A (1929) Brit J Exper Path 10, 226). But it rapidly disappeared from their blood, and it seemed to work very slowly in the test tube.

Quoting terrorists is bad enough. Quoting unsubstantiated lies from terrorists is even worse.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,09:24   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,22:26)
Isnít it just common sense to test drugs on organisms with similar architectures? Again, I donít think we need to assume common descent there.

If you do not assume common descent, what is your justification for assuming that, because they have similar architectures, they will have similar physiologies? That is like assuming that because the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A330 have similar architectures they should react similarly to an electrical fault on the flight deck.

I notice that, although you refuse to openly acknowledge the reality of common descent, the acceptance of it is deeply ingrained within you. You are continually making assumptions that are only valid if common descent is correct.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,09:30   

Speaking very briefly from both an a) seriously hungover perspective and b) a drug discovery perspective: we DON'T simply pick organisms to test drugs on because they have "similar architecture" that would mean that chimps/primates are the most suitable organisms for study in all cases, and they ain't.

I'll have to elaborate later as I am hungover and being forced to shop by She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,12:01   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 27 2008,09:24)
† † †
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,22:26)
Isnít it just common sense to test drugs on organisms with similar architectures? Again, I donít think we need to assume common descent there.

If you do not assume common descent, what is your justification for assuming that, because they have similar architectures, they will have similar physiologies? That is like assuming that because the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A330 have similar architectures they should react similarly to an electrical fault on the flight deck.

In fact they might have identical structures in some areas, especially if their designs took place in the same time period. They might, for example, use the exact same engine. Some of the avionics elements might be identical (obtained from the same commercial vendors).

Whereas a Boeing 747, whose design pre-dates that of the 767, could have remarkably different engines, avionics, flight controls, landing gear designs, etc., even though it is from the same manufacturer, simply because it was designed in an earlier era. It might have even been assembled differently than the 767 -- whereas the A330 and the 767 might be assembled using similar techniques, since advances in the engineering state of the art tend to bridge the discipline spanning different manufacturers. We all swim in the same pool of technology, and that pool moves.

(I know of this first-hand because as a radar designer I have had the unique opportunity to study our competitors in detail, and now no longer experience the shock of discovering that their designs and technologies, year after year, differ very little from our own, even though radar designs of today differ markedly from those of a decade or two ago.)

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,13:47   

Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 27 2008,13:01)
Whereas a Boeing 747, whose design pre-dates that of the 767, could have remarkably different engines, avionics, flight controls, landing gear designs, etc., even though it is from the same manufacturer, simply because it was designed in an earlier era. It might have even been assembled differently than the 767 --

Well, YEAH. By a tornado in a junk yard, doncha know.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,13:55   

Quote (didymos @ Sep. 27 2008,01:34)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,20:26)
I googled trying to find some examples of duplications that werenít caused by common ancestry and I found an article about fungi. †

So, looks like FTK didn't bother to actually read the abstract:

Quote

Phylogenetic analysis of conserved gene families in fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe and brewer's yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae showed that gene duplications have occurred independently in the same families in each of these two lineages to a far greater extent than expected by chance. These species represent distinct lineages of the phylum Ascomycota that independently evolved a "yeast" life cycle with a unicellular thallus that reproduces by budding, and many of the genes that have duplicated independently in the two lineages are known to be involved in crucial aspects of this life cycle. Parallel gene duplication thus appears to have played a role in the independent origin of similar adaptations in the two species. The results indicate that using phylogenetic analysis to test for parallel gene duplication in different species may help in identifying genes responsible for similar but independently evolved adaptations.


Can someone remind me again what phylogenetic analysis is based on?

You'd think that this would be embarrassing.  But therein lies the problem....

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,13:57   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 27 2008,19:55)
Quote (didymos @ Sep. 27 2008,01:34)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,20:26)
I googled trying to find some examples of duplications that werenít caused by common ancestry and I found an article about fungi. †

So, looks like FTK didn't bother to actually read the abstract:

†  
Quote

Phylogenetic analysis of conserved gene families in fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe and brewer's yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae showed that gene duplications have occurred independently in the same families in each of these two lineages to a far greater extent than expected by chance. These species represent distinct lineages of the phylum Ascomycota that independently evolved a "yeast" life cycle with a unicellular thallus that reproduces by budding, and many of the genes that have duplicated independently in the two lineages are known to be involved in crucial aspects of this life cycle. Parallel gene duplication thus appears to have played a role in the independent origin of similar adaptations in the two species. The results indicate that using phylogenetic analysis to test for parallel gene duplication in different species may help in identifying genes responsible for similar but independently evolved adaptations.


Can someone remind me again what phylogenetic analysis is based on?

You'd think that this would be embarrassing. †But therein lies the problem....

DAMN IT!

That's the second new keyboard in a week! This time it wasn't coffee but a nice combination of Pepto Bismol and Alka Seltzer. Do you have any idea how hard that is to pick out of a keyboard?

I'm tempted to get one of those "projected light" keyboards, those are easy to clean.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,14:04   

The common descent framework is an important tool in drug discovery earlier than in the testing phase.  Looking for families of pharmaceutically useful compounds in plant species is informed by knowledge of the relationships among plant species.  Common design can't tell us where to look as related plant species often look quite different and less-closely related species often look very similar.  How many common plant names have "false-" as part of them?  Molecular techniques have been radically changing plant systematics in the last 10-20 years as we find that phylogenies based on morphological characters - structural similarity - are inadequate.  Which is a pain in the ass to the rest of us who have to keep up with the name changes.

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,14:51   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 27 2008,13:47)
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 27 2008,13:01)
Whereas a Boeing 747, whose design pre-dates that of the 767, could have remarkably different engines, avionics, flight controls, landing gear designs, etc., even though it is from the same manufacturer, simply because it was designed in an earlier era. It might have even been assembled differently than the 767 --

Well, YEAH. By a tornado in a junk yard, doncha know.

I serves em up nice n easy, I does.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,15:15   

Quote (George @ Sep. 27 2008,20:04)
The common descent framework is an important tool in drug discovery earlier than in the testing phase. †Looking for families of pharmaceutically useful compounds in plant species is informed by knowledge of the relationships among plant species. †Common design can't tell us where to look as related plant species often look quite different and less-closely related species often look very similar. †How many common plant names have "false-" as part of them? †Molecular techniques have been radically changing plant systematics in the last 10-20 years as we find that phylogenies based on morphological characters - structural similarity - are inadequate. †Which is a pain in the ass to the rest of us who have to keep up with the name changes.

Now that is what's commonly known as a very good point!

The spread of secondary metabolite is yet another one of those marvellous things that works with common descent.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,22:18   

Ftk explains why her husband was most attracted to her mind:
Quote
He's always been one of those people who works better in total chaos than in an organized work space...


--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2008,16:34   

Common design isn't very 'sciency' if it can't make predictions. On the basis of
  1 - swims in the water
  2 - has scales

what is the common design prediction for direction of tail movement, up/down or side/side? From a design perspective, skin covering and tail motion are independent choices a designer could make. That is not true from a descent perspective.

(Yes, this is the same point as previously made about molecules and drug discovery, just using a big easy example.)

So common descent is important because it allows us to make predictions about all forms of life, predictions  which common design would not allow us to make.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < ... 317 318 319 320 321 [322] 323 324 325 326 327 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]