RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Microglial Cells:, Evidence for intelligent input< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2005,13:21   

Evolutionists are constantly complaining that proponents of ID do no scientific research to support their case. This is not true because there are dozens of articles published each year that support the notion of intelligent input. The support is not in the "spin" that the author puts on the data, it's in the data itself.    
   Here we have a system made up of multiple structures and multiple processes, integrated into the system and integrated into the surrounding systems in such a way that they can alter their behavior in the presence of an injury to the brain. I would like to know how this can be explained without invoking intelligent input. What kind of random, non-directed or accidental mechanism could possible accomplish this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   Resting Microglial Cells Are Highly Dynamic Surveillants of Brain Parenchyma in Vivo
   Axel Nimmerjahn 1, Frank Kirchhoff 2, Fritjof Helmchen 1*

   1 Abteilung Zellphysiologie, Max-Planck-Institut für medizinische Forschung, Jahnstr. 29, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
   2 Abteilung Neurogenetik, Max-Planck-Institut für Experimentelle Medizin, Hermann-Rein-Str. 3, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.

   * To whom correspondence should be addressed.
   Fritjof Helmchen , E-mail: fritjof@mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de

   Microglial cells represent the immune system of the brain and therefore are critically involved in various injuries and diseases. Little is known about their role in the healthy brain and their immediate reaction to brain damage. Using in vivo two-photon imaging in neocortex, we found that microglial cells are highly active in their presumed resting state, continually surveying their microenvironment with extremely motile processes and protrusions. Furthermore, blood brain barrier disruption provoked immediate and focal activation of microglia, switching their behavior from patrolling to shielding of the injured site. Microglia thus are busy and vigilant housekeepers in adult brain.

   Published online 14 April 2005
   Science Express

   
VoxRat



Posts: 8
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2005,20:22   

I'll check back in when I've read the article. Meanwhile, I will also want to know how this can be explained by invoking intelligent input.

  
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2005,15:34   

Charlie neatly sums up one of the arguments for intelligent design, which is argument from ignorance. He has used this argument almost exclusively in his discussions on talk.origins and at the Panda's Thumb. The bottom line is that Charlie cannot possibly see how microglia could have arisen to respond to brain injury, and thus invokes an intelligent agent.

There are over a thousand papers on the activation of microglia after injury, and theri behaviour is well-characterized. They respond to cytokines released by damaged brain tissue (such as the interleukins), which causes them to change their behaviour. This is no different in prinicple from the activation of a variety of blood cells after injury.

We do not know every detail about how inflammatory responses evolved, although there are plenty of clues out there. In fact, if Charlie took the time to read the literature on neuroinflammation, he might come up with some ideas himself. But that's too much like hard work, right? FAr easier just to sit back and say it was designed.

As a final thought, I challenge Charlie to write to the authors of the paper he cites and ask them whether they agree with his thesis. I will be interested to see their reply.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2005,17:57   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

Charlie neatly sums up one of the arguments for intelligent design, which is argument from ignorance. He has used this argument almost exclusively in his discussions on talk.origins and at the Panda's Thumb. The bottom line is that Charlie cannot possibly see how microglia could have arisen to respond to brain injury, and thus invokes an intelligent agent.

   If I were you, I wouldn't be bringing up the argument from ignorance. It is the main argument that evolutionists use to defend their theory.
    Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.
   Evolutionists routinely claim that since evolution can't be proven not to have occurred, then it must be true. In the same vein evolutionists routinely claim that since ID has not been proven to be true, then it must be false.
  For example, would you say that ghosts exist because no one has proven that they don't? Or that the Loch Ness monster exists because no one has been able to prove it doesn't? Or that the Big Bang is false because no one can prove that it's true?
   The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It is not the responsibility of others to prove the claims false. Evolutionists have gotten away with this little charade for too long. I don't have to prove *your* theory false. You have to convince me that it's true to a reasonable degree of certainty.
   If you think that the microglial system with all of it's complex structures and processes, all integrated into a system that has a clear purpose, arose by accidental, non-directed processes then it is incumbent upon you to prove it.

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2005,17:59   

Or maybe you meant the argument from incredulity....

   
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2005,20:52   

Quote
   The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.


Exactly. You are claiming the microglial system is the result of intelligent forces. So go ahead, show us the evidence. Saying you can't imagine how it could have evolved is not evidence for intelligent design.

Meanwhile, do some reading on teh relationship between microglia and macrophages.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2005,11:32   

Re "Evolutionists routinely claim that since evolution can't be proven not to have occurred, then it must be true."

Correction: the theory is accepted because it hasn't been proven false, not because it can't be, and there's plenty of places in which contrary evidence might be (or have been) found.

Henry

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2005,12:50   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

You are claiming the microglial system is the result of intelligent forces. So go ahead, show us the evidence.

  I make no such claim. I offer it as a possibility. No one, not you, not I knows how the microglial system emerged nor does anyone have the empirical evidence to support such a claim.
I admit freely that I have no empirical evidence to support a claim that this system is the product of intelligent design.
  My argument is one of analogy, that since no such systems have ever arisen without intelligent input, it seems highly unlikely that this one did. After all, science doesn't prove things, it merely tries to determine what is most likely.
    So, if you are making the claim that the microglial apparatus evolved by some mechanism of random mutation and natural selection then you must explain where the insight came from to assemble the components, the physical structures and the processes in such a way that they are integrated together and in such a way that they support the functions of the other components and work together to achieve a specific outcome, which is the protection of the brain from insult and energy.
  If you cannot do this, then you always have the option of admitting that your mechanism is only a just-so story, one that is unsupported by any empirical evidence and that your claim has no more merit than mine does.
  When intent can be demonstrated, as it has with this system, then insight is a prerequisite. And insight only comes from intelligence it doesn't come from random, accidental occurrences. How do you get around that simple fact?
Quote

Meanwhile, do some reading on teh relationship between microglia and macrophages.

  I happen to know quite a bit about macrophage since it was an important component of my Masters thesis. Microglia are sometimes characterized an the macrophage equivalent of the CNS. So anything I say about microglia probably applies equally to macrophage. The same questions I would have about the etiology of the microglial system could be asked in a more general way about macrophage behavior.
  One must wonder where the insight came from that allows these cells to transform from the "resting state" to the activated state in the presence of a threat. It requires insight to recognize such a threat and it requires insight to know what the correct response should be. Where did this insight come from?
  In addition, the activation of these types of systems involves cascade types of responses which are made up of many steps, each one dependent on the outcome of the preceeding step. Where did the insight come from that assembled these steps into a functionsl cascade that could result in t useful output? How did these cells aquire the  ability to recognize a dangerous signal as well as to sense a functional disturbance?
  As the integrative aspect of microgial/macrphage activation becomes clearer, it becomes harder and harder to attribute  to random chance the beneficial potential of these fascinating cells.

   
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2005,13:41   

Quote
One must wonder where the insight came from that allows these cells to transform from the "resting state" to the activated state in the presence of a threat.


I think it came from Interleukin 1.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,06:19   

Just so I'm clear what we're discussing here: is there anything at all that the specialized situation of "microglia" - especially as discussed in the cited Science paper - brings to the table that the more general situation of "macrophages" doesn't?

There is a rich literature on the evolution of macrophages and response to signals of injury, inflammation, invasion...

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,06:31   

Quote
My argument is one of analogy, that since no such systems have ever arisen without intelligent input, it seems highly unlikely that this one did.
Isn't this a classic case of "begging the question"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,08:46   

Russell wrote:
Quote

Just so I'm clear what we're discussing here: is there anything at all that the specialized situation of "microglia" - especially as discussed in the cited Science paper - brings to the table that the more general situation of "macrophages" doesn't?

There is a rich literature on the evolution of macrophages and response to signals of injury, inflammation, invasion...

 
  Yes. Microglial cells are much more complex and specific to their function. They both perform an immune function but in very different ways.
   There is a rich literature on macrophage functions but I was unable to uncover any papers on macrophage evolution. Do you know of any?
Quote

Isn't this a classic case of "begging the question"?


No, it's an argument by analogy, an important part of the scientific method and perfectly acceptable. In fact, most of science flows from inductive reasoning and analogy.
   I wouldn't be bringing up "begging the question" because it is one oif the most well known tactics of evolutionists:

Professor: Scientists say that evolution is true.
Student: How do they know this?
Professor: It's explained in any textbook on evolution.
Student: Well, who writes the textbooks?
Professor: The scientists.

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,11:39   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

I think it came from Interleukin 1.


Yes, and I guess the insight on how to build a computer came from the electrons that came out of the power outlet. Cool!

   
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,11:52   

Quote
Professor: Scientists say that evolution is true.
Student: How do they know this?
Professor: It's explained in any textbook on evolution.
Student: Well, who writes the textbooks?
Professor: The scientists.


Actually, the exchange goes like this:

Professor: Scientists say that evolution is the best current explanation for life's diversity
Student: How do they know this?
Professor: Because the data that we have is best explained by modern evolutionary theory
Student: Does this mean we know how every organism and every biochemical system evolved?
Professor: No. But it's a start.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,12:46   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

Actually, the exchange goes like this:

Professor: Scientists say that evolution is the best current explanation for life's diversity
Student: How do they know this?
Professor: Because the data that we have is best explained by modern evolutionary theory
Student: Does this mean we know how every organism and every biochemical system evolved?
Professor: No. But it's a start.


  First, I'm assuming this is Andy Groves. If not, I would appreciate knowing that.

I would really prefer to discuss the question that I started with, which referred to the evolutionary mechanism by which microglial cells might have evolved.

However, since you struck my funnybone, here's my experience:
Quote

Professor: Scientists say that evolution is the best current explanation for life's diversity
Student: How do they know this?
Professor: Because the data that we have is best explained by modern evolutionary theory
Student: I would be interested in knowing what you mean when you use the term evolution. Do you simply mean "change over time" or do you mean "change in gene frequency as a result of natural selection" or do you mean "the accumulation of fortuitous mutations over time as a result of natural selection leading to new adaptations, structures and processes".
Professor: Next question.
Student: OK, I'll move on. Perhaps you would care to describe some of this data that you refer to? Is it empirical data, in the form of observations or experiments and how does it support whatever it is that you call evolution?
Professor: <<sound of crickets chirping>>

   
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,13:06   

Quote
I would really prefer to discuss the question that I started with, which referred to the evolutionary mechanism by which microglial cells might have evolved.


What's the point? If we delve into the literature and piece together a scenario for you, you will reply that it is insufficiently detailed and therefore, in your opinion, microglia are the products of intelligent design. Been there, done that.

Quote
Student: I would be interested in knowing what you mean when you use the term evolution. Do you simply mean "change over time" or do you mean "change in gene frequency as a result of natural selection" or do you mean "the accumulation of fortuitous mutations over time as a result of natural selection leading to new adaptations, structures and processes".
Professor: Next question.


Evolution is change over time. Things change because their genetic material changes. So evolution is a change in allele (not gene) frequency. This can happen by natural selection, or by other mechanisms such as genetic drift. Over time this will lead to new adaptations, structures and processes.

Quote

Student: OK, I'll move on. Perhaps you would care to describe some of this data that you refer to? Is it empirical data, in the form of observations or experiments and how does it support whatever it is that you call evolution?
Professor: <<sound of crickets chirping>>


It is empirical data in the form of observations. If that data does not satisfy you, Charlie, that's too bad. There's no pleasing some people.

1. By the by, what data *would* satisfy you?
2. Have you contacted the authors of that paper yet to ask if they think microglia are the result of intelligent design?

Andy Groves

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,16:11   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

What's the point? If we delve into the literature and piece together a scenario for you, you will reply that it is insufficiently detailed and therefore, in your opinion, microglia are the products of intelligent design. Been there, done that.


  This is nothing more than a huge cop-out. The best you could do is make up a story that might sound good, as has been done in other examples (blood clotting, bacterial flagellum, camera eye. etc.). If you say this to everyone who asks you then you never have to produce any evidence. Don't confuse just-so stories with actual empirical data. Just-so stories will continue to be rejected out of hand.

Perhaps one of the other 197 people that have viewed this thread would like to take a stab at it.
Quote

Over time this will lead to new adaptations, structures and processes.

No it won't. And you can't produce even one shred of evidence that it can. Natural selection can change the frequency of alleles in a population but it can only act on what is already present. Mutation therefore, must do all the work of creating new variation. And it's a totally random process. There is no empirical basis for believing that, even in combinatioin, these trivial effects can do what you think they can do.

Quote

It is empirical data in the form of observations.


Cite one piece, just one piece, of empirical data that links the changes in allele frequency that occurs under selection and the appearance of new structures, processes or adaptations.

Quote

By the by, what data *would* satisfy you?


Well your theory claims that random mutations and natural selection have (and had) the power to create new processes, new structures and new adaptations where they did not exist before. Not variations on already existing structures, but proof that these variations can accumulate and organize into new processes, new structures, new adaptations and new organisms. In other words, a nexus linking these effects to the evolution of structures and systems like the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, the biochemstry of vision and the emergence of the mammalian ear with its highly organized structures and processes that are integrated in such a way that they support each other and are integrated into the brain and the cranium in such a way as to allow functional hearing.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,16:43   

Quote
This is nothing more than a huge cop-out. The best you could do is make up a story that might sound good, as has been done in other examples (blood clotting, bacterial flagellum, camera eye. etc.). If you say this to everyone who asks you then you never have to produce any evidence. Don't confuse just-so stories with actual empirical data. Just-so stories will continue to be rejected out of hand.
I see. So none of this "it might have happened this way" or a sort of "general scenario". Nothing less than the actual blow-by-blow, mutation by mutation, account will do. OK, if those are the rules, here's the score:

Evolution 0
Intelligent Design 0

Moreover, I can guarantee you that score will not budge any time in the conceivable future. Guarantee it.

Is that the end of the discussion? Or should we adjust the rules a little to allow for discussion of the relative plausibilities of the two kinds of explanations? Or the number of assumptions that need to be incorporated?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,17:38   

Quote
Cite one piece, just one piece, of empirical data that links the changes in allele frequency that occurs under selection and the appearance of new structures, processes or adaptations.


Minor quibble: Remember I said that these changes do not need to occur by selection - drift is also a mechanism of evolution.

But anyway, your example of the evolution of a new structure, adaptation or process is the evolution of nylonases in bacteria.

Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers (2000), Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol.54, 461-466.


Kato K, Ohtsuki K, Koda Y, Maekawa T, Yomo T, Negoro S, and Urabe I.
(1995 Oct). A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation:
nucleotide sequence and analysis of pOAD2. Microbiology , 141 ( Pt
10),  2585-90.


Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, and Urabe I.  (1995 May). Emergence
of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO
through experimental evolution. Appl Environ Microbiol , 61,  2020-2.


Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., (1992) No stop codons in the
antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89, 3780-3784.


Kato K, Fujiyama K, Hatanaka HS, Priyambada ID, Negoro S, Urabe I, and
Okada H.  (1991 Aug 15). Amino acid alterations essential for
increasing the catalytic activity of the nylon-oligomer-degradation
enzyme of Flavobacterium sp. Eur J Biochem , 200,  165-9.


Ohno S.  (1984 Apr). Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative
reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding
sequence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 81,  2421-5

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,17:42   

Russell wrote:
Quote

Evolution 0
Intelligent Design 0


I couldn't agree more. I would be happy if evolutionists would just drop their insistence on a darwinian mechanism and religious creationists would drop their insistence that the Bible is the answer and that these two ideological views would take a back seat to the one method that can inform us, the scientific method.
   
Quote

Is that the end of the discussion? Or should we adjust the rules a little to allow for discussion of the relative plausibilities of the two kinds of explanations? Or the number of assumptions that need to be incorporated?


It's not the end, it's the beginning. Science must move foward, unencumbered by ideological biases and obsolete paradigms. If we abandon the notion that everything we see can be explained in darwinian terms, then perhaps we will start seeing things with new eyes. I would be perfectly happy with a naturalistic explanation for life, but I will go where the road leads me.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,17:57   

OK. We agree that no scientific understanding of the history of life is likely to ever be "complete". And we agree that we're going to have to make do with "the scientific method" -  though I think you'll find that the definition of that is a little soft.  So, using the test case at hand, how do you propose to apply the scientific method to the development of microglia? Also, lest our terminology get away from us, whether or not this (or any other) evolutionist "insists on a darwinian mechanism" depends on the definition of that term, which I have seen all over the map. I don't know which version you're using here.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,19:26   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

But anyway, your example of the evolution of a new structure, adaptation or process is the evolution of nylonases in bacteria.


AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

THE RETURN OF THE DREADED NYLON DIGESTING BACTERIA!!!!!!

Run away...run away...

Let us taunt it! It may become so cross that it will make a mistake.

Have we got bows?

No, we have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! 'Tis one of the sacred relics Brother Maynard carries with him. Brother Maynard! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade!

And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'

And that was the end of the dreaded nylon digesting bacteria...

And everyone lived happily ever after.

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,19:47   

Russell wrote:
Quote

I don't know which version you're using here.


   In order to avoid getting bogged down in semantics, I would like to reframe the question. What it comes down to is not what mechanism so much as the broader question: Is it possible for life as we know it to have emerged by a process that relies only on random occurrences or is some kind of intelligent input from the outside required?
   As far as I'm concerned, that is the really important question. To answer that question, we have to investigate whether systems of equal complexity and organization could have or have emerged by unguided, accidental processes. So far, it seems to me that we cannot point to any system of equal complexity and organization and declare unequivocally that it emerged by accidental processes.
    Another way of approaching the problem is to investigate whether systems of this complexity and organization are capable of emerging as the result of intelligent input. Here, we can tentatively answer yes. We have numerous examples of highly organized, complex systems that are the result of intelligent input, although they are not as sophisticated as living systems and cannot replcate themselves..
   Applying Feynman's criteria, we then ask ourselves: at the present time, with our present knowledge, which mechanism seems most likely, the one based on random mutation and natural selection or the one based on intelligent input.
   You know my answer. What's yours?

All of this of course, does not and should not prevent us from investigating the actual processes and mechanisms that are present in living cells and their genomes. Perhaps we will uncover some previously undiscovered first principle that was involved. Perhaps we will never know.

   
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,21:25   

See what I mean, Charlie? There's no pleasing some people.

You did ask for one example, didn't you? Do you want another one? How about the selective reduction of pelvic fins and body armor in sticklebacks?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,22:16   

Quote
So far, it seems to me that we cannot point to any system of equal complexity and organization and declare unequivocally that it emerged by accidental processes
Nor can we point to any system of equal complexity and organization and declare that it did NOT emerge by "accidental processes". So, once again, it's:

Evolution: 0
Intelligent design: 0

I'm beginning to suspect this might not be a useful way to make any progress on this question.
Quote
Is it possible for life as we know it to have emerged by a process that relies only on random occurrences or is some kind of intelligent input from the outside required?   As far as I'm concerned, that is the really important question.
Have we decided that microglia were a red herring and "cut to the chase" as it were? I might be interested in exploring the evolution of  particular systems. But on the origin of life, fascinating though it is, I'm OK with the high probability that no consensus is going to emerge in my lifetime. I find none of the arguments that "intelligent input" is somehow theoretically  required at all convincing. But until some dramatically new evidence is available, we can only guess. And,  frankly, I don't think your guess is as good as mine.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2005,23:25   

Sorry for the intrusion, and for pushing my own favorite "icon", but what the hey...

Quote
Cite one piece, just one piece, of empirical data that links the changes in allele frequency that occurs under selection and the appearance of new structures, processes or adaptations.


They're not microglial cells (which, IMO, would not pass muster as a new structure, process, or adaptation in cewagner's eyes... but that's another discussion), but this icon fits the bill pretty nicely.  The thread is a bit dated, as there is more recent research dealing with the interesting genes, but it still suffices to lay to rest this particular canard.

Again, admittedly not microglial cells, and thus probably out of place.  But posted for the record nonetheless.

Edited by Art on April 21 2005,09:46

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2005,09:09   

AndyG wrote:

Quote

You did ask for one example, didn't you?


This is not a "new process", it's nothing more than a single frame-shift mutation in an already existing process. There's no way you can demonstrate that this will ever evolve beyond that single step into something "new" and you cannot demonstrate that the mutation was truly random or that intelligent input from the genome was not a factor.
   With respect to sticklebacks, your case is even weaker. All that was demonstrated is that a single gene controls body armor and that it can activate and deactivate under varying conditions. We know that the genome contains the regulatory apparatus that controls the activation and deactivation of genes, so this is not surprising. Humans still have the genetic instructions for hirsutism, but they have simply been turned off. We know this because we've seen examples (wolf boy?) where they revert. You also cannot demonstrate (as described above) that this was a random or accidental mutation and not the result of directed guidance from a dynamic and responsive genome to changes in environmental conditions.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2005,09:16   

Quote
You also cannot demonstrate (as described above) that this was a random or accidental mutation and not the result of directed guidance from a dynamic and responsive genome to changes in environmental conditions.
Nor can you demonstrate that the decay of a carbon-14 nucleus is a purely a random event, rather than a dynamic process guided from a responsive intelligence within the nucleus.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2005,09:39   

Russell wrote:
Quote

Nor can we point to any system of equal complexity and organization and declare that it did NOT emerge by "accidental processes".


Perhaps not as complex and highly organized as living things, but it's only a matter of degree. We can point to many highly organized and complex systems and in no case ever do we find such a system that emerged by random chance. All highly organized and complex systems found on the earth that we know the origin of, are the result of intelligent design. There are no exceptions.
   So, you have no support for the notion that any kind of highly organized, complex system, no matter what it's degree of sophistication, can emerge without intelligent input. Not even simple systems like a mousetrap can ever emerge without intelligent guidance and insight.

Quote

Have we decided that microglia were a red herring and "cut to the chase" as it were?


No, because it's not. You can't fall back on abiogenesis and claim that evolution is not the same and remove it from the question. If intelligent input was required, it would be required at every step of the way, from the very first molecules to the most advanced systems. It's all one big continuum from start to finish and its disingenuous to try to separate it into two questions, because it's not two questions, it's one and the same question.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2005,10:29   

Quote
Perhaps not as complex and highly organized as living things, but it's only a matter of degree.
As you have said many times, the value of this analogy is only as good as its power to persuade, which is nil. If your entire argument rests on this analogy, we're done here.
Quote
It's all one big continuum from start to finish and its disingenuous to try to separate it into two questions, because it's not two questions, it's one and the same question.
What is the evidence that the events involved in abiogenesis are the same as those involved in the morphing of proto-humans into humans? I can imagine some parallels and some ways in which the processes would likely be very different. What's the evidence? That being said, if you think the question is just as well addressed from either the abiogenesis angle or the (relatively) recent biological history angle, I'm for the latter, as there you have some hope of having some actual data to discuss.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2005,13:22   

Quote
You also cannot demonstrate (as described above) that this was a random or accidental mutation and not the result of directed guidance from a dynamic and responsive genome to changes in environmental conditions.


You mean Lamarckism?

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2005,15:14   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

You mean Lamarckism?


Not in this particular instance. There's a lot of evidence accumulating that environmental factors can regulate, and in some cases alter the expression of genes. Since we don't know whether these effects can be passed on to future generations, we can't say for sure. Classic Lamarckism is a simplistic and obsolete notion about how genetic regulation and expression works and is inadequate in modern biological thinking but the ability of environmental factors to not only influence gene expression, but to pass these changes on to future generations cannot be ignored.
   We simply don't know enough yet about reverse transcription, retrogenes, retropseudogenes, retrosequences and retrotransposons to say that acquired characteristics can never be inherited.

   
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2005,16:46   

Quote
We simply don't know enough yet about reverse transcription, retrogenes, retropseudogenes, retrosequences and retrotransposons to say that acquired characteristics can never be inherited.


No, we can't say that. However, at present the only evidence that they can is some extremely controversial work from Ted Steele and colleagues in the only system in the body that undergoes significant genetic rearrangement during development.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2005,09:30   

To all my correspondents,
 I’ve recovered from my recent illness sufficiently and have had the time and energy to update my website and blog. Stop by and say hello!

http://www.charliewagner.com…
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2005,11:37   

AndyG wrote:
Quote

at present the only evidence that they can is some extremely controversial work from Ted Steele and colleagues in the only system in the body that undergoes significant genetic rearrangement during development.


Try running these terms (see above) through PubMed and you'll find dozens of papers describing research in this area. While none have reached the point where they can declare that acquired characteristics can be incorporated into the genome and passed on to future generations, clearly this possibility is under intense scrutiny. Ted Steele does not represent this body of work and the controversies surrounding him should not be used to discredit it.

   
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2005,15:37   

Slightly off topic, but Mr. Wagner opened the door by providing links to his updated website (thanks!;)). When a scientist offers a suspect theory, it is often helpful to look at his other publications for consistency in reasoning and here we have some examples of Mr. Wagner's logic (very consistent by the way):
On guns:
Quote
But a gun is nothing more than a tool and if properly used, causes no harm. It is no different from an ax, or a brick, or a can of gasoline...Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fuel oil and fertilizer. Should they be banned?

So guns are just like axes, bricks and gasoline? Why didn't anyone tell me!
On recycling:
Quote
What about aluminum cans and glass? We have enough of this stuff to last for centuries. Just bury it and forget it. You say it doesn't decompose or degrade? So what? Neither does rock! The earth is covered with a quadrazillion tons of broken rock just lying around forever. Not hurting anyone. So what if a few glass bottles and cans are added to the pile.

Cans and bottles are just like rocks... That's rich! Oh, and cells are like computers! Too funny!
On exercise:
Quote
In fact, exercise could very well kill you. There is no evidence that exercise of any kind can decrease mortality and allow you to live longer. In fact, if you suffer from arteriosclerosis, cardio- vascular disease or hypertension, strenuous exercise could well prove fatal.

Has someone notified the New England Journal of Medicine?

The overriding pattern that emerges in Mr. Wagner's logic is clearly the misuse of simile. He has a clever analogy for everything! Mr. Wagner sees the world in similes taken literally to a ridiculous extent.
I applaud your courage Mr. Wagner. You express yourself well in writing and in great volume. By publishing this website, you have provided anyone with the inclination a window into your irrational thought processes and your ability to make analogous connections where none exist! You are welcome to them, Mr. Wagner. Just don't pollute my kid's mind with your logic.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2005,21:05   

cewagner (charlie wagner) wrote:

"I would like to know how this can be explained without invoking intelligent input. What kind of random, non-directed or accidental mechanism could possible accomplish this?"

416 people have viewed this thread but I've not gotten one single answer to my query. I wonder what that means?

   
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2005,11:46   

Re "416 people have viewed this thread but I've not gotten one single answer to my query. I wonder what that means?"

Well, if you want my two cents worth, maybe people get tired of repeating the point that unanswered questions are not in themselves evidence of any particular model.

Henry

  
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2005,15:24   

Quote
416 people have viewed this thread but I've not gotten one single answer to my query. I wonder what that means?


It means We Don't Know.

  
  38 replies since April 17 2005,13:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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